The High Court
Case Details
2025:JHHC:34730 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI S. A. No. 91 of 2022 1. Dulari Oraon, daughter of Late Soma Oraon, aged about 52 years. 2. Amit Oraon, son of Late Prakash Oraon, aged about 19 years. 3. Bhadwa Oraon, Son of Late Budhu Oraon, aged about 60 years. 4. Sukhu Oraon, S/o Late Budhu Oroan, aged about 45 (Substituted vide order dated 11.09.2024) 4.a Sushma Bakhla, aged about 40 years, W/o: Late Sukhu Oraon @ Sukhu Bakhla 4.b Ansu Bakhla, aged about 16 years, S/o: Sukhu Oraon @ Sukhu Bakhla, minor being represented under the guardianship of his mother Sushma Bakhla 4.c Amrit Bakhla, aged about 17 years, S/o: Late Sukhu Oraon @ Sukhu Bakhla, minor being represented under the guardianship of his mother Sushma Bakhla All are residents of Kacchabari, P.O. & P.S. Bingaon, Karra, District Khunti, Jharkhand. … … Versus Plaintiffs/Appellants/Appellants 1. Junus Oraon, S/o Late Ranju Oraon, Resident of Village Kachabari, P.O. & P.S. Kara District Ranchi Now Khunti 2. Deputy Commissioner, Khunti, Resident of Khunti, P.O., P.S. and District-Khunti. 3. Manoj Bakhla, S/o: Late Binod Bakhla 4. Most. Uni Oraon, W/o: Late Tarsiyus Oraon 5. Bipul Oraon 6. Bikas Oraon 7. Bipin Oraon
Legal Reasoning
Defendant Nos. 5 to 7 are sons of Late Tarsivus Oraon, through their guardian and mother defendant No.4, Respondent Nos. 3 to 7 resident of Village Kachabari, P.O. Bingaon, P.S. Karra, District Ranchi now Khunti. … … Defendants/Respondents/Respondents --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY For the Appellants
Legal Reasoning
--- : Mr. Vibhor Mayank, Advocate --- 13/20.11.2025 1. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 30.04.2022 (Decree signed on 12.05.2022) passed by learned District Judge-II, Khunti in Civil Appeal No.53 of 2012 whereby the judgment and decree dated 29.05.2012 (Decree signed on 13.06.2012) 1 2025:JHHC:34730 passed by learned Munsif, Khunti in Title Suit No. 08 of 2011 was affirmed. 3. The Title Suit was dismissed by the learned trial court and the judgment passed by the learned trial court was affirmed by the learned 1st appellate court. Consequently, the plaintiffs are the appellants before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that though there are concurrent findings recorded by both the courts, but the judgments are perverse. He has submitted that learned 1st appellate court has wrongly relied upon the registered sale deed dated 05.03.1930 (Exhibit-A) which was more 30 years old document. He has submitted that it is just a rebuttable presumption and the same cannot be taken as a gospel truth. He further submits that there is a discrepancy in connection with the identity of the property when compared with the property mentioned in the registered deed of 1930 and the suit property. He submits that this aspect of the matter having not been considered and therefore, a substantial question of law be framed and decided. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, this Court finds that the suit was filed seeking a declaration of right, title, interest and confirmation of the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land and in the alternative a decree for recovery of possession of the plaintiffs and that the plaintiffs be put in khas possession of the suit property and defendants be permanently restrained from making any changes in the suit property. 6. The specific case of the plaintiffs was that plaintiffs were the descendants of the recorded tenant. The plaintiffs have given the genealogy. The record of rights in respect of revisional survey settlement Khata No. 31 of village Gugu, P.S. Karra, District-Ranchi (Now Khunti) was recorded in the name of Potma Oraon and the schedule of the property was R.S Plot No.488 measuring an area of 0.94 acres falling under this Khata which was mentioned in schedule ‘B’ of the plaint. The cause of action arose in the first week of June, 2 2025:JHHC:34730 2010 when the defendants threatened to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit land. 7. The defendant No. (2) was the Deputy Commissioner and the case was contested by all the defendants except defendant No.2. 8. It was asserted in the written statement filed by the all the defendants [except defendant No.2] that there was no cause of action. It was the specific case of the defendants that the recorded tenant Potma Oraon had no concern with the suit land since 06.03.1930 as he sold the suit property to the father of the defendant No.1 by virtue of registered deed of sale and it was also the case of the defendants that they were in peaceful possession of the suit property since 1930 and their name was also mutated in the revenue records and they were paying rent after vesting of zamindari also. The name was also entered in Register-II of the State Government. The defendants also gave the genealogy with respect to their family. 9. It was further case of the defendants that the sale deed was registered on 06.03.1930 and the RS kahtian was published on 10th June, 1931 i.e. after completion of 15 months. Before the publication of Khatian under Section 83(2) of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, draft record of right under Section 83(1) CNT Act was published. The khata number and plot number of the suit land during C.S record of right in respect of the suit land was 19 and C.S. Plot No. 267 and the area was 0.97 acres. 10. Both the parties had adduced oral and documentary evidence. The defendants specifically exhibited the sale deed dated 05.03.1930 as Exhibit-A and the rent receipts were also exhibited as Exhibit-C to C/5. Further order of proceeding under Section 144 of Cr.P.C. was also exhibited as Exhibit-B wherein possession of the defendants was shown. 11. The learned trial court had framed the following issues for consideration:- I. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form? II. Whether the suit is barred under the principle of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence? 3 2025:JHHC:34730 III. Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation and adverse possession? IV. Whether the suit suffers from non-joinder of parties? V. Whether the plaintiff has valid cause of action for the suit? VI. Whether the plaintiff has right, title, interest and possession over the suit land? VII. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs sought for or any other reliefs in the law and equity? VIII. To what relief or reliefs the plaintiff is entitled to? 12. The learned trial court found that the defendants were having the right, title, interest and possession with respect to the suit property, primarily on the basis of the registered sale deed of the year 1930 and also the other materials placed on record, both oral and documentary including the aforesaid exhibits produced by the defendants. The finding of the learned Munsif including the point with respect to the genuineness of the sale deed dated 06.03.1930 is quoted as under: - “27. After above discussion and perusal of all relevant papers i.e. plaints, written statement, depositions (affidavits) of witnesses of both sides and exhibits, I find that the suit land of Khata No. 31 of Gugu, P.S. Karra, District, Ranchi (Now Khunti) R.S. Plot No. 488, Thana No. 165 area 0.94 acres stands recorded in the name of Potma Oraon in the record of right and it is admitted fact that the plaintiffs are the descendants of the recorded tenant Potma Oraon and the purchaser of the land, mentioned in Exhibit-A Leda Oraon is ancestor of defendants. I also find that plaintiffs claim the title in respect of suit land on the ground being heirs, successors and legal representatives of the recorded tenant as well as on the basis of long continuous after possession over the land in suit, and also on the basis of the R.S. khatiyan in which Potma Oraon has been shown as recorded tenant through the same has been prepared after the alleged sale deed (Exhibit-A). According to plaintiffs’ counsel if the suit land was sold by the recorded tenant on 05.03.1930/06.03.1930 to Leda Oraon, then the name of Leda Oraon should have been find place in the R.S. Khatiyan of Khata No. 31 and Exhibit-2 (Banda Purcha of present settlement) is also ample proof of possession as the same has been prepared in the name of Soma Oraon and Budhu Oraon, Sons of Potma Oraon. On the other hand I find that defendants claim their right, title, interest and possession over the suit and on the basis of 4 2025:JHHC:34730 registered sale deed (Exhibit-A), the rent receipts (Exhibit-C to C/5) and also on the basis of order dated 26.11.1963, passed in M-206/1963. So to decide this issue it is essential to come to the conclusion whether the said Potma Oraon has sold the land in question to the said Leda Oraon in the year 1930 and whether the said deed of sale (Exhibit-A) is genuine and correct or fabricated as well as whether the plaintiff has possession over the suit land or defendants has possession over the same. In this context after scrutinizing the arguments of both the counsels and the evidences of both the sides oral as well as documentary. I further find that the Exhibit-A shows that the plot No. 488/267 of khata No. 31 has been sold by recorded raiyat of R.S. Khata No. 31 namely Potma Oraon to Leda Oraon on 05.03.1930/06.03.1930 through a registered deed. I further find that in the year 1963 a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. was initiated by Lohra Oraon, S/o Leda Oraon which is crystal clear from Exhibit-B and the said proceeding was decided in favour of Lohra Oraon, S/o Leda Oraon and as such it reveals that ancestor of plaintiffs Potma Oraon or the plaintiff had the knowledge of the said sale deed (Exhibit-A), but neither before the said proceeding or during the said proceeding or after the said proceeding, till filling the present suit never challenged the sale deed (Exhibit-A) and even in the present suit neither in plaint nor in the evidence of the plaintiffs or other witnesses it was ever challenged. I further find that Exhibit-C to C/5 the rent receipt shows that the rent of the suit land is being paid by the defendants. I also find that neither in the plaint nor in the affidavits of plaintiffs’ witnesses there is any whisper that any rent is being paid with respect to suit land by the plaintiffs or their ancestor and no rent receipt with regard to suit land has been brought on the record on behalf of plaintiff. So far the name of Potma Oraon in the R.S. record of right as well as the name of Soma Oraon and Budhu Oraon, S/o: Potma Oroan in the draft of record of right in the on going settlement survey (Exhibit-2) is concerned, I find force in the argument of defendants counsel and also find that the said sale deed (Exhibit-A) has been executed 15 months prior to the final publication or R.S. record of right, hence the name of the purchaser Leda Oraon could not find place in the R.S. record of right and as the final publication of the on going settlement has not been published, hence the entry of the name of Budhu Oraon and Soma Oraon has no value in the eye of law. I further find that none of the P.Ws have land at village Gugu while all D.W.s including defendant witness 1 have land besides at suit land and as such 5 2025:JHHC:34730 there are contradictions in the statement of P.W.s with regard to boundary of the suit land. P.W.1 Stella Oraon has stated in para 25 that in North-Sakhuwa Jungle, in South- Natua Kujur, in East- Natua Kukuar and in West there is also Natua Kujur but P.W.2 Arun Bakhla said that there is Jungle in North, Natua in South, Sukra Kujur in East and West and P.W. Benjamin Dadel said that there is government land in North, Natua in South, Binod (Defendant) in East and Natua in West and as such I find that witness of plaintiffs are not trustworthy. I further find D.W. 1, S/o: defendant Junus Oraon has stated in his affidavit para 6 that the suit land was purchased on 06.03.1930 by the ancestor Leda Oraon from Potma Oraon through a registered deed to the consideration amount of Rs.2300/-. He has also stated in para 13 of his affidavit that in the C.S. record of right suit land was mentioned as plot No. 267 and khata No. 19 and area 0.97 acres and as such in sale deed (Exhibit-A) the plot no. of C.S. and R.S. both have been mentioned and no question has been asked during cross examination of this witness to prove that plot No. 488 of R.S. record of right of Khata No. 31 is not the plot 267 of C.S. record of right of khata No. 19 and as such the statement of D.W. 1 remained intact. Hence keeping the view of aforesaid discussion, I find that the sale deed (Exhibit-A) is the genuine document which has been executed by Potma Oraon in favour of Leda Oraon and plaintiff has failed to prove that the same is forged and fabricated and as such I find that plaintiffs hence no right, title, interest and possession over the suit land rather defendants have right, title, interest and possession over the suit land. Accordingly, issue No. VI is decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of defendants.” 13. The learned 1st appellate court re-casted the issues which were framed by the learned trial court and also considered the materials on record to arrive at findings. The learned 1st appellate court framed the following points for determination: - title, the plaintiffs have right, “Whether interest and possession over the suit land and whether Sale deed dated 05.03.1930 (Exhibit-A) is a genuine document and the transfer of the suit land to the defendant is valid on execution of the sale deed? Whether the judgment and decree is sustainable in the eyes of law or not?” 6 2025:JHHC:34730 14. The learned 1st appellate court has recorded the finding in paragraph 19 and 23 of the appellate court’s judgment, which are as follows:- tenant Potma Oroan. recorded “19. A careful perusal of evidence available on record makes it clear that admittedly the suit land of Khata No 31 of Guyu; P.S Karra, Dist Ranchi (Now Khunti) of R.S plot no 488, Thana No 165 area 0.94 acres stands recorded in the name of Potma Oraon in the record of right and the Plaintiffs/Appellants are the descendants of The the Plaintiffs/Appellants claim of the title of suit land is based on legal the ground being heirs, successor and representation of the recorded tenant as well as on the basis of the R.S Khatiyan in which Potma Oraon has been shown as recorded tenant but from perusal of Ext-A, the Sale deed dated 06.03.1930 it makes clear that the suit land was sold and transferred by Potma Oraon, i.e. the ancestor of the Plaintiffs/Appellants to Lede Oraon, i.e the ancestor of defendants/respondents through the registered sale deed on 06.03.1930. In Jamila Begum (D) Thr. Lrs. VS Shami Mohd. (D) Thr. Lrs. 2019 2 SCC 727; it has been held that A registered document carries with it a presumption that it was validly executed. It is for the party challenging the genuineness of the transaction to show that the transaction is not valid in law. Further the sale deed is more than thirty years document and coming from proper custody carries a presumption of valid execution of the document and is admissible under Section 90 of the Evidence Act if it is genuine. The onus was on the Plaintiffs/Appellants to prove that the sale deed was not validly executed or it was forged or fabricated document or executed without receipt of any consideration money. The defendant/appellants has not made any prayer before the trial court for examination of the sale deed by expert or has not bring on record any evidence to show that the sale deed dated 06.03.1930 is not a genuine document and thus have failed to rebut the the presumption by transaction was not valid in law and the sale deed was not genuine. Therefore, the it transaction between Potma Oraon and Lede Oraon was valid transaction and registered sale deed dated 06.03.1930 is validly executed and is genuine document through which the suit land was transferred by Potma leading reliable evidence is presumed that that 7 2025:JHHC:34730 i.e the Oraon ancestor Oraon,i.e. the ancestor of the Plaintiffs/Appellants to of Lede defendants/Respondents and the ownership in property was transferred as soon as registration of sale deed is effected. Further it is evident that and the land thereafter was mutated in the name of Lede Oraon and he was paying rent to the Government and thereafter the is Defendants/Respondents are paying rents which reflected by Ext C to C/5 rent receipts. The transfer of ownership was incorporated in revenue record and the purchaser became exclusive owners of the suit land and the suit land was inherited by the plaintiffs/Respondents as heirs and successors. The land were also partitioned between them and they were in cultivating possession of the suit land and paying rents which has been confirmed by DW1, Dw2 and Ext C to C/5 rent receipts. It is true that a revenue record is a not a document of title but rent is the first change on a tenancy, it may raises a presumption of correctness, but such a presumption is rebutable. The said entries in the revenue record was never challenged earlier by the Appellants/defendants. So far that name of Potma Oraon in the R.S record of right as well as the name of Some Oraon and Budhu Oraon S/o Potma Oraon in the draft of record of right in the on going settlement Survey (Ext.2) is concern, it has been clarified by DW1 that the said sale deed was registered before 15 months of final publication of the R.S Khayiyan therefore the name of the purchaser Leda Oraon could not find place in the R.S record of right and as the final publication of the on going settlement has not been published. However the name of Budhu Oraon and Soma were replaced with the name of the present defendants and their names were entered in the primary khatiyan. Further from perusal of Ext-B C.C of order dated 26.11.83 passed in M 206/1963 u/s 144 Cr.P.C by the SDO Khunti, it transpires that in the year 1963 a proceeding u/s 144 Cr.PC M 206/1963 was initiated by Lohra Oraon with regard to the suit land in which Potma Oraon was the opposite party and the said proceeding was decided in favour of Lohra Oraon on the basis of Sale deed dated 06.03.1930 (Ext-A) from which it is manifestly clear that the ancestor of plaintiffs Potma Oraon and the plaintiffs had definite knowledge of the sale deed dated 26.11.83 (Ext. A) but it was not 8 2025:JHHC:34730 challenged before the said proceeding or thereafter till filling of the present suit. 23. Therefore, in my opinion, the learned court of the Munsif has rightly dismissed the plaintiffs suit holding that the sale deed (Ext. A) executed by Potma Oraon in favour of Leda Oraon is genuine document and the plaintiffs/Appellants have failed to prove that the same is forged and fabricated and that that plaintiffs/Appellants have no right, title, interest and possession over the suit land. That the suit suffers from non joinder of parties and is barred by limitation. It has been contended that the Learned court of the Munsif has not framed proper issue as to whether the sale deed dated 06.03.1930 is forged and fabricated document, in this regard from the impugned judgment it transpires that although no specific issue was framed with regard to the genuineness of the sale deed, the Learned court has dealt with the matter and has given its finding that sale deed dated 06.03.1930 is genuine document. The Ld. Munsif has meticulously discussed and rightly appreciated the evidence available on record and given categorical finding with regard to the issues as raised before it and the same do not require interference. Learned counsel appearing the appellants has failed to convince this court on the point raised in Memo of Appeal.” for 15. This Court finds that the courts have meticulously scrutinized the materials on record and have dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs and decided the case in favour of the defendants holding that the registered sale deed of the year 1930 (Exhibit-A) was genuine document in connection with the property involved in this case and while arriving at the findings both the oral and documentary evidences have been appreciated thread bare by the learned court and the defendants were found in possession. The learned 1st appellate court has also recorded that although the Munsif had not framed proper issue as to whether the sale deed dated 06.03.1930 is forged and fabricated document, but the judgment revealed that the Learned trial court dealt with the matter and has given its finding that sale deed dated 06.03.1930 is genuine document. The finding of the learned trial court with respect to the genuineness of the sale deed dated 9 2025:JHHC:34730 06.03.1930 has been quoted above. No perversity with respect to the appreciation of materials on record has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants. 16. The judgment of the trial court is well reasoned and has been rightly upheld by the learned 1st appellate court. This Court is of the considered view that no question of law, much less, any substantial question of law is involved in this case. 17. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in this 2nd appeal which is hereby dismissed. 18. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not pressed. 19. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the concerned courts through “FAX/e-mail”. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 20.11.2025 Rakesh/- Uploaded On:-05.02.2026 10