Bharat Coking Coal Limited having its Office at Koyla Bhawan v. Koyla Nagar, P.O. & P.S
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI S.A. No.494 of 2017 ------ (Against the judgment dated 07.07.2017 passed by learned District Judge-VIII, Dhanbad in Title Appeal No.17 of 2016) ------ 1. Dhiren Kumhar; 2. Raju Kumhar; 3. Hiren Kumhar; 4. Nirmal Kumhar; All sons of Chhutu Kumar 5. Jadu Kumhar 6. Anil Kumhar; 7. Aaditya Kumbhakar Sl. No. 5 to 7 are Sons of Shri Jyoti Kumhar; All Sl. No.1 to 7 are Residents of Village- Bowakola, P.O.- Bhuli, P.S.- Katras, District- Dhanbad .... .... …. Plaintiffs/ Appellants/Appellants. 1. Bharat Coking Coal Limited having its Office at Koyla Bhawan, Versus Koyla Nagar, P.O. & P.S.- Saraidhela, District- Dhanbad (Jharkhand); 2. General Manager, B.C.C.L, Area No. VIth, Kusunda Area, P.O.- Kusunda, P.S.- Kenduadih, District- Dhanbad; 3. Project Officer, East Basuria Colliery, B.C.C.L., Area No.VIth, P.O. & P.S.- Bowakola (East Basuria) Colliery, District Dhanbad; 4. Estate Officer, B.C.C.L., Area No. VI, P.O.- Kusunda, P.S.- Kenduadih, District- Dhanbad. ....
Legal Reasoning
.... …. Defendants /Respondents/Respondents For the Appellants For the Respondents ------
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Shekhar Pd. Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Ms. Puja Agarwal, Advocate Mr. Kashish Tiwary, Advocate 1 S.A. No.494 of 2017 ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. This Second Appeal filed under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been preferred against the judgment and decree of concurrence dated 07.07.2017 passed by learned District Judge-VIII, Dhanbad in Title Appeal No.17 of 2016 whereby and where under the learned first appellate court has dismissed the appeal on contest. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the plaintiffs filed Title Suit No.71 of 2013 in the court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dhanbad with a prayer for decree in their favour declaring their right, title and interest over the suit land and cost of the suit. The case of the plaintiffs in brief is that the suit land was originally recorded in the name of the grandfather of the plaintiffs namely Govind Kumhar, in the Cadestral Survey Settlement Record. The father of the plaintiffs namely Jyoti Kumhar and their uncle Chhutu Kumhar, inherited the suit plot and were in possession of the suit land. They transferred the suit land to the plaintiffs vide registered sale-deed No.1133 dated 14.02.2013 and delivered possession thereof. After purchase, the plaintiffs got their name mutated in respect of the suit land in Sherista of Circle Officer, Baghmara and started paying rent to the State Government. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that in course of verification of revenue records, it was detected that the C.S. Plot No.3082 was converted into R.S. Plot No.3263 measuring an area of 44 decimals and plot No.3264 measuring an area of 27 decimals and the 2 S.A. No.494 of 2017 same was recorded in the name of the defendant No.1 under R.S. Khata No.385 which was finally published on 26.10.2007. 4. The defendant Nos.2 and 3 appeared in the suit but they were debarred from filing their written-statement but the defendant Nos.1 and 4 did not appear and the suit proceeded ex parte against them. 5. In support of their case, the plaintiffs altogether examined three witnesses and proved the documents which have been marked Ext. 1 to 4. 6. The learned trial court being the Civil Judge, Senior Division-II, Dhanbad considered that though as per the case of the plaintiffs, the father of Jyoti Kumhar and Chhuttu Kumhar should have been Govind Kumhar but in the sale-deed concerned bearing No.1133 dated 14.02.2013 which is Ext. 2, the father of Jyoti Kumhar and Chhuttu Kumhar has instead been mentioned as Late Dilu Kumhar and there was no material in the record to establish, that Govind Kumhar and Dilu Kumhar were one and the same person. The learned trial court further considered that the plaintiffs failed to establish their contention that in the C.S. Khatiyan, the name of their grandfather Govind Kumhar is appearing as the recorded tenant by not bringing any Khatiyan to the record. The learned trial court further considered that it is the case of the plaintiffs; as pleaded in paragraph-4 of their plaint, that R.S. Khatiyan of the land was finally published in the year 2007 but the sale-deed in question being Ext.2, though is of the year 2013 but in the said sale-deed R.S. Plot Number and R.S. Khata Number has not been mentioned. The learned trial court further considered that the plaintiffs have not adduced any evidence that C.S. Plot No.3082 of C.S. Khata No.09 correspond to plot Nos.3263 and 3264 of R.S. Khata No.385. The learned trial court next considered that the vendor of the 3 S.A. No.494 of 2017 plaintiffs has never agitated before the revenue authorities about the entry of the name of the defendant No.1 and went on to hold that the plaintiffs failed to establish their title and dismissed the suit. 7. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 29.01.2016 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division-II, Dhanbad, the plaintiffs/appellants preferred Title Appeal No.17 of 2016 in the court of Principal District Judge, Dhanbad which was ultimately heard and disposed of by the District Judge- VIII, Dhanbad by the impugned judgment. 8. The learned first appellate court formulated the following points for determination:- (1) Whether the plaintiffs acquired right, title and interest over the suit land on the basis of registered sale deed no.1133 dated 14.02.2013? (2) Whether the learned court below properly appreciated the evidence on record or not? 9. The learned first appellate court took up point No.1 and after considering the materials available in the record that though as per the case of the plaintiffs, the recorded tenant was Govind Kumhar but the son of Dilu Kumhar executed the sale-deed in favour of the plaintiffs. Thus, in the absence of any pleading that the Cadestral Survey Plot Number, Khata Number, in the Revisional Survey Record of Rights, the suit land was recorded in the name of defendant No.1, the Learned Appellate Court went on to hold that the plaintiffs failed to prove the right, title and interest over the suit land and decided the point for determination No.1 against the plaintiffs/appellants. 10. The learned first appellate court next took up point for determination No.2 and went on to hold that the learned trial court has properly appreciated the evidence in the record and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by 4 S.A. No.494 of 2017 the learned trial court being the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dhanbad and dismissed the appeal. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the plaintiffs are the sons of Jyoti Kumhar and Chhutu Kumhar to whom the suit land originally belongs. It is next submitted that both the courts below failed to consider that the plaintiffs are the grandsons of Govind Kumhar. It is further submitted that both the courts below have committed perversity in appreciation of the evidence in the record. Hence, it is submitted that the impugned judgment and decree passed by both the courts below be set aside and the suit of the plaintiffs be decreed. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand opposes the suit and submits that no illegality has been committed by both the courts below in appreciation of the evidence in the record. It is next submitted that the plaintiffs miserably failed to establish their right, title and interest by failing to bring on record any evidence to show that the land in question was ever recorded in the name of Govind Kumhar- whom the plaintiffs claim to be their grandfather and also failed to bring in record any material to suggest that Jyoti Kumhar and Chhutu Kumhar son of Dilu Kumhar were the owner of the property in question in respect of which they executed sale-deed in favour of the plaintiffs. It is then submitted that neither way the plaintiffs could establish their title. Hence, it is submitted that there is absolutely no substantial question of law involved in this appeal; therefore, this appeal, being without any merit, be dismissed. 13. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention 5 S.A. No.494 of 2017 here that so far as the claim of right, title and interest of the plaintiffs through inheritance is concerned, though the plaintiffs claim that Govind Kumhar was the recorded tenant in the Cadestral Survey Khatiyan but without any plausible reason the plaintiffs failed to file the said Khatiyan showing Govind Kumhar to be the recorded tenant. In the absence of any evidence to show that Govind Kumhar, whom the plaintiffs claim to be their grandfather, was the recorded tenant of the suit land; obviously no illegality has been committed by the learned court below in holding that the plaintiffs failed to establish their right, title or interest over the suit land on the basis of their claim that Govind Kumhar was the recorded tenant and they are the grandsons of Govind Kumhar. 14. So far as the contention of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs have acquired title by way of sale-deed which has been marked Ext. 2 executed by Jyoti Kumhar and Chhutu Kumhar sons of Dilu Kumhar is concerned, there is no material in the record to suggest that Jyoti Kumhar or Chhutu Kumhar were having any right, title and interest in respect of the property sold by them because in the absence of any pleadings or evidence in the record to establish any relationship between Dilu Kumhar and Govind Kumhar, no right, title and interest of Dilu Kumhar or his sons namely Jyoti Kumhar and Chhutu Kumhar can be established, when it is the case of the plaintiff that Govind Kumhar was the recorded tenant of the suit land and not Dilu Kumhar. 15. Under such circumstances, this Court do not find any illegality in the judgment and decree passed by both the courts below dismissing the suit and the title appeal respectively. 6 S.A. No.494 of 2017 16. So far as the contention of the appellants regarding perversity in appreciation of the evidence in the record is concerned, it is a settled principle of law that that perversity, so far as it relates to interfering with the findings of fact in exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 100 and 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure is concerned, is that if a finding of fact is arrived at by ignoring or excluding the relevant materials or by taking into consideration the irrelevant material or if the finding, so outrageously defies the logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality incurring the vice of being perverse, then the finding is rendered infirm in the eyes of law or if the finding of the court is based on no evidence or evidence, which is thoroughly unreliable or the evidence that suffers from the vice of procedural irregularity or the findings are such that no reasonable person, would have arrived at those findings then the findings may be said to be perverse, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur vs. Punjab State Electricity Board & Others reported in (2010) 13 SCC 216 para- 28 of which reads as under :- “28. If a finding of fact is arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant material or by taking into consideration irrelevant material or if the finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality incurring the blame of being perverse, then the finding is rendered infirm in the eye of the law. If the findings of the Court are based on no evidence or evidence which is thoroughly unreliable or evidence that suffers from the vice of procedural irregularity or the findings are such that no reasonable person would have arrived at those findings, then the findings may be said to be perverse. Further if the findings are either ipse dixit of the Court or based on conjecture and surmises, the judgment suffers from the additional infirmity of non- application of mind and thus, stands vitiated. (Vide Bharatha Matha v. R. Vijaya Renganathan [(2010) 11 SCC 483 : AIR 2010 SC 2685].“ and the same has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Bharatha Matha and Another vs R.Vijaya Renganathan & 7 S.A. No.494 of 2017 Others reported (2010) 11 SCC 483 and which has also been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of K.N. Nagarajappa and Others vs. H. Narasimha Reddy reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 694. 17. Now, coming to the facts of the case; as already indicated above, since the plaintiffs have failed to establish the source of their title by failing to file the Khatiyan or the authenticated copy of Cadestral Survey in which the name of Govind Kumhar has been mentioned as recorded tenant and by not explaining how the vendor of the plaintiffs vide sale-deed being the Ext. 2 namely Jyoti Kumhar and Chhutu Kumhar both sons of Dilu Kumhar were owners of the land at the time of execution of the sale-deed, both the courts below have rightly arrived at the conclusion that the plaintiffs have failed to establish their title in respect of the suit land. 18. Thus, this Court is of the considered view that there is absolutely no substantial question of law involved in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal, being without any merit, is dismissed. High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 12th of July, 2024 AFR/ Animesh (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 8 S.A. No.494 of 2017