Soma Kumhar, aged about 53 years, son of late Amin Kumhar, resident of village v. 1. Nilabar Singh Munda, 2. Vishwadeo Munda Both sons of late Bhutnath Mundari, resident
Case Details
2025:JHHC:33612 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI S.A. No. 69 of 2022 Soma Kumhar, aged about 53 years, son of late Amin Kumhar, resident of village Piskahatu, P.O. & P.S. Arki, District Khunti, Jharkhand … … Defendant/Appellant/Appellant Versus 1. Nilabar Singh Munda, 2. Vishwadeo Munda Both sons of late Bhutnath Mundari, resident of village Piskahatu, P.O. & P.S. Arki, District Khunti, Jharkhand 3. Deputy Commissioner, Khunti, P.O.+P.S.+District Khunti … … Plaintiffs/Respondents/Respondents … … Proforma Defendant/Respondent/Respondent --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY For the Appellant For the Respondents --- ---
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate : 13/6th November 2025 1. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 25.02.2022 (decree dated 10.03.2022) passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Khunti in Civil Appeal No. 18 of 2018 confirming the judgment dated 24.09.2018 (decree dated 01.10.2018) passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division (Munsif), Khunti in Title Suit No. 09/2013. The learned trial court has decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the plaintiffs were the recorded tenant in connection with the suit property and the contesting defendant claimed the suit property by virtue of Sada Hukumnama dated 20.10.1945 issued by the father of the plaintiffs. He submits that the learned court has rejected the claim of the defendant on the ground that the defendant has not been able to show under what 1 2025:JHHC:33612 provision of law, Bhutnath Munda could execute/issue Hukumnama when he was not the Jamindar of the village. 4. The learned counsel has referred to the judgment passed by this Court in L.P.A. No. 61 of 2004 in the case of Godwin Ekka vs. State of Bihar reported in (2009) 57 BLJR 2459 decided on 03.03.2009 arising out of a proceeding under Section 71A of the Chhota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 (C.N.T. Act) and has referred to paragraph 25 of the said judgment to submit that there is no provision under C.N.T. Act which prohibits creation of under-raiyati tenancy. He submits that in the said case also, there was Kaiyami raiyati by virtue of settlement who in turn created an under-raiyati tenancy. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, this Court finds that the specific case of the plaintiffs was that the ancestors of the plaintiffs were settled raiyats with respect to the suit property and were having kaimi holding. The recorded tenants were Pustam Mundari and Guru Mundari, both sons of Mohan Mundari as a Kaimi holding and they were in possession of the property. Guru Mundari died issueless and heirless, but Pustam Mundari was survived by his only son Bhutnath Mundari who also died leaving behind the plaintiffs as heirs and successors and the plaintiffs claimed to have been in possession of the property. 6. It was further case of the plaintiffs that the defendant raised unfounded claim for the first time in the month of February 2013 and came over the land and started excavating foundation of a house and ultimately a proceeding under Section 144 of Cr.P.C. was initiated which was numbered as Misc. Case No. 22 of 2013. The defendant claimed that his father owned the suit property by virtue of Sada Hukumnama issued in the year 1945. 7. The case of the plaintiffs was that the claim of the defendant was illegal and incorrect also because kaimi raiyat cannot execute 2 2025:JHHC:33612 Hukumnama and a cloud was created in the title of the plaintiffs and consequently the suit was filed. 8. So far as the defendant is concerned, they contested the case on the point that the suit was barred by limitation, waiver, estoppel and acquiescence and barred under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act and also for non-joinder of necessary parties. The defendant claimed that the land recorded under khata no. 23 plot no. 82 area 0.30 acres was already conveyed or transferred by Bhutnath Mundari, father of the plaintiffs, to different persons including Amin Kumhar, the father of the defendant Soma Kumhar, and the defendant also claimed adverse possession. The defendant claimed that they have acquired title with respect to the suit property since the year 1945 when the Hukumnama was executed in their favour by the father of the plaintiffs, Bhutnath Marandi. 9. trial court learned framed The the following issues for consideration: - (i) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form? (ii) Is the suit barred by law of limitation and adverse possession and ouster? (iii) Is the suit is barred by waiver, acquiescence and estoppel? (iv) Whether plaintiffs have got valid cause of action for the suit? (v) Is the suit bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of the necessary party? (vi) Whether the plaintiffs have got right, title, interest and possession over the suit land? (vii) Whether the alleged transaction dated 20.10.1945 executed by Bhutnath Munda in favour of Amin Kumar is valid in the eye of law? (viii) Whether the defendants have acquired right title and interest over the suit land on account of the aforesaid transaction dated 20.10.1945? (ix) Whether the plaintiffs entitled to relief or reliefs as claimed in the foot of the plaint? 3 2025:JHHC:33612 10. The learned trial court considered issue no. vii and viii together and held that Bhutnath was a raiyat and had settled the land in favour of the father of the defendant through hukumnama and that such settlement was invalid and void-ab-initio as raiyat did not have the power to settle the land and the power was with the landlord. The transaction through Hukumnama was held to be void-ab-initio. The Sada Hukumnama was declared to be invalid document and ultimately the suit was decreed. 11. The learned 1st appellate court has framed the following points for determination: - “(i) Whether the Sada Hukumnama dated 20.10.1945 executed by Bhutnath Munda in favour of Amin Kumhar father of defendant no. 1 Soma Kumhar (appellant) is valid in eye of law and on the basis of said Sada Hukumnama dated 20.10.1945 the defendants/appellant has acquired right, title and interest over the suit land on the basis of Sada Hukumnama dated 20.10.1945 executed by Bhutnath Munda, father of plaintiff/respondent in favour of Amin Kumhar (defendant no.3) now dead, father of defendant no. 1/Appellant Soma Kumhar? (ii) Whether the appellant/defendant got right, title, interest on the basis of adverse possession over the suit land? (iii) Whether the plaintiffs have got right, title, interest and possession over the suit land (iv) Whether the findings of learned court below is suffered from illegality, absurdity and liable to be set aside or not?” 12. The learned 1st appellate court while considering the point of determination no. (i) has considered the legality and validity of the claim of the defendant on the basis of Sada Hukumnama dated 20.10.1945 and held that the defendant had claimed the property on the basis of Sada Hukumnama dated 20.10.1945, but has not been able to show under what provision of law, any person other than Jamindar could execute the Hukumnama. The defendant was also not able to show any rent receipt issued pursuant to execution of Sada Hukumnama. The learned 1st 4 2025:JHHC:33612 appellate court also recorded that unregistered Sada Hukumnama can be used for collateral purpose, but in this case, the Sada Hukumnama was issued by the tenant (raiyat) and there was no rent receipt on record issued by the competent authority and ultimately held that Sada Hukumnama dated 20.10.1945, on the basis of which the defendant claimed his title, was an invalid document and no right, title and interest could pass to the transferee pursuant to Sada Hukumnama and held that issue nos. 6, 7 and 8 were rightly decided by the learned trial court. 13. This Court finds that the plaintiffs had questioned the legality and validity of Sada Hukumnama, which was relied upon by the defendant to claim right, title and interest and possession. It is not in dispute that the father of the plaintiffs was the recorded tenant and the defendant claimed that the recorded tenant had issued Sada Hukumnama to the father of the defendant. Both the courts have given concurrent findings after considering the materials on record that the tenant does not have right to issue Hukumnama. 14. The argument has been advanced by the appellant by referring to the judgment passed in the case of Godwin Ekka (Supra) to submit that there is no legal bar in kaimi raiyats making settlement under the provisions of C.N.T. Act and his specific argument is that such settlement could have been made by the father of the plaintiffs, who was admittedly a raiyat. 15. This Court has gone through the aforesaid judgment and in paragraph 32 of the said judgment, it has been held that creation of under raiyat tenancy and customs of acquisition of right, even similar to those of an occupancy raiyat, could not be said to be in violation or inconsistent with any other provision of the Act and that it is a different question that in all cases, an under-raiyat does not acquire occupancy right in the land held by him. It has been held in paragraph 33 of the judgment that acquisition of such a right is subject to custom or usage prevalent in the area. It has also been held that the claim of such custom raises a factual 5 2025:JHHC:33612 question and the same is required to be pleaded and proved and in paragraph 34 it has been held that it was not the case of the respondents that the appellant had not pleaded and proved such custom of acquisition of occupancy right which as per section 23 of the C.N.T. Act is a heritable right like any other immoveable property subject to local custom to the contrary. Ultimately, the Hon’ble Division Bench decided the matter by observing that Section 71-A was invoked after lapse of more than prescribed period of 30 years as the raiyati tenancy was created way back in 1936 and the appellant was in continuous possession and had invested considerable amount to improve the property possession and held that the appellant had acquired title by adverse possession and the appeal was allowed. 16. In the present case, it is not the case of the defendant that the Hukumnama was validly issued by the raiyat (tenant) by referring to any custom and the defendant could not justify the issuance of sada hukumnama by a raiyat. Moreover, the plea of adverse possession has been rejected by citing sound reasons. Accordingly, the judgement passed in the case of Godwin Ekka (Supra) does not help the appellant in any manner whatsoever. 17. This Court is of the considered view that in the instance case, the defendant was claiming right, title and interest with respect to the property on the basis of Sada Hukumnama executed by the tenant, but the same was not supported by any proof of his occupation of the suit property including any rent receipt etc. The learned courts have taken a point that the defendant could neither show as to under what provision, the Hukumnama was executed by a raiyat nor could show that the defendant had acquired any right, title and interest by virtue of Sada Hukumnama dated 20.10.1945 and the plea of adverse possession was also rejected. The learned 1st appellate court has also taken into consideration that Sada Hukumnama could be used for collateral purpose, but in the present case, 6 2025:JHHC:33612 the Sada Hukumnama was issued by the tenant and there is no rent receipt or record issued by the competent authority. 18. This Court finds that the defendant claimed right, title and interest over the suit property only on the basis of Sada Hukumnama and the same being unregistered could not have been recognized by law. The plea of adverse possession has also been rejected by both the courts by observing that the defendant has not been able to show his possession over the suit property and the defendant all of a sudden in 2013 started claiming the suit land by digging it for construction of building and the witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiffs substantiated the claim of the plaintiffs that the defendant was never in possession of the suit property. 19. This Court finds that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this second appeal, which is hereby dismissed. 20. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed. 21. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘e-mail/FAX’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 06.11.2025 Mukul/- Uploaded on: 18.11.2025 7