) ------ 1. Smt. Ram Sinhasan Devi, wife of Ram Lakhan Bhagat 2. Sri v. 1
Case Details
Second Appeal No. 457 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI S.A. No.457 of 2017 (Against the Judgment and decree dated 14.06.2017 passed by the learned District Judge -XIV, Dhanbad in Title Appeal No. 105 of 2010) ------ 1. Smt. Ram Sinhasan Devi, wife of Ram Lakhan Bhagat 2. Sri Ram Sakal Bhagat 3. Sri Sheo Shankar Bhagat 4. Uma Shankar Bhagat 5. Murari Bhagat All sons of Late Ram Lakhan Bhagat, resident of Laikdih, P.O. & P.S. –Chirkunda, District -Dhanbad. .... .... …. Appellants Versus 1(a) Sunder Bala Dasi, W/o Late Shyamrathi Ram 1(b) Devanti Devi, D/o Late Shyamrathi Ram 1(c) Jamanta Devi, D/o Late Shyamrathi Ram 1(d) Chinta Devi, D/o Late Shyamrathi Ram All resident of Bagam Dhowra, P.O. –Kumardhubi, P.S. –Chirkunda, District -Dhanbad. 2. State of Bihar now Jharkhand, New Secretariat Ranchi 3. The L.R.D.C., Dhanbad, P.O., P.S. & District –Dhanbad. 4. The Circle Officer Nirsa, P.O. & P.S. –Nirsa, District –Dhanbad 5. The Deputy Commissioner Dhanbad, P.O., P.S. & District –Dhanbad. 6. The Addl. Collector Dhanbad, P.O., P.S. & District –Dhanbad. 7. The Sub Divisional Officer, Dhanbad, P.O., P.S. & District –Dhanbad. 8. Smt. Chandrawati Devi, wife of Late Ram Brichh Bhagat. 9. Shant Devi, wife of Late Ram Shankar Bhagat. 10. Geeta Devi, D/o Late Ram Shankar Bhagat. 11. Birendra Bhagat, son of Late Ram Shankar Bhagat. 12. Lalita Devi, D/o Late Ram Shankar Bhagat. 13. Munna Bhagat, S/o Late Ram Shankar Bhagat 14. Jyoti Kumari, D/o Late Ram Shankar Bhagat All resident of Laikdih No.4, P.O. & P.S. –Chirkunda, District – Dhanbad. 15. Smt. Debanti Devi 16. Jayanti Devi, Both daughters of Late Ram Brichh Bhagat, resident of Laikdih Kumardhubi, P.O. & P.S. –Chirkunda, District –Dhanbad. 17. Anna Devi, wife of Late Rajendra Bhagat. 18. Birendra Bhagat, S/o Late Rajendra Bhagat 19. Rinku Devi, D/o Late Rajendra Bhagat 20. Tinku Devi, D/o Late Rajendra Bhagat All resident of Laikdih Kumardhubi, P.O. –Kumardhubi, P.S. – Chirkunda, District –Dhanbad. 21. Rajdeo Bhagat, son of Late Ramjit Bhagat, resident of Laikdih Kumardhubi, P.O. –Kumardhubi, P.S. –Chirkunda, District –Dhanbad. 22. Chamely Devi, wife of Late Ramjit Bhagat 23. Upendra Bhagat, son of late Ramjit Bhagat. 1 Second Appeal No. 457 of 2017 24. Jitendra Bhagat, son of Late Ramjit Bhagat. 25. Satendra Bhagat, son of Late Ramjit Bhagat. All resident of Laikdih Kumardhubi, P.O. –Kumardhubi, P.S. – Chirkunda, District –Dhanbad. 26. Bharat Bhagat, S/o Late Ramjit Bhagat 27. Ramesh Bhagat, son of Late Ramjit Bhagat All resident of Laikdih Kumardhubi, P.O- Kumardhubi, P.S. – Chirkunda, District –Dhanbad. ... .... …. Respondents ------ For the Appellants For the Respondents : Mr. Shekhar Pd. Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Sanjay Prasad, Advocate ------ PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2 This second appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 14.06.2017 passed by the learned District Judge -XIV, Dhanbad in Title Appeal No. 105 of 2010 by which in a judgment of concurrence, the
Legal Reasoning
learned first appellate court has dismissed the appeal without finding any occasion to interfere with the finding of the learned trial court being the court of Subordinate Judge-VI, Dhanbad in Title Suit No.5 of 1990 dated 30.04.2010. 3 The case of the plaintiffs in brief is that the father of the plaintiffs came in possession of the suit land by virtue of settlement made by the ex-landlord on the condition that the father of the plaintiffs would reclaim the lands and make them suitable for growing Rabi and paddy crops. The said settlement was made in the year, 1940 and as per the condition, the father of the plaintiffs reclaimed the said land and constructed house upon a portion of it 2 Second Appeal No. 457 of 2017 and started living there and by reclaiming the land started growing Rabi crops and seasonal vegetables. Consequent upon death of the father of the plaintiffs in July, 1972, the plaintiffs succeeded to the said property in total consisting of 2.27 acres. The plaintiffs occupied part of the land adjacent to each other and lying south of the rivulet. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that the defendant no.1 has no land in the vicinity and had nothing to do with the suit land. After the vesting of the estate of the Zamindar, the plaintiffs applied to the then Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad for settlement of the said land. The matter was referred to Circle Officer, Nirsa and the Circle Officer Nirsa recommended for settlement of the land in favour of the plaintiffs but the said matter remained pending. The plaintiffs asserted that the defendant no.1 is a land grabber and by hobnobbing with the local Revenue Officers, he manipulated and got opened a file in his name to get some settlement documents from the L.R.D.C., Dhanbad. The plaintiffs came to know that entry of the defendant no.1 in the Kancha Parcha in respect of the portion of the suit land has been made. The defendant no.3 being the LRDC, Dhanbad, under the influence of defendant no.1 visited the place and threatened ouster of the plaintiffs. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the defendant no.1 is hell-bent upon getting parcha in respect of the suit land, issued in his favour by the defendant no.3. The plaintiffs claimed to be in peaceful and continuous possession for more than 50 years since their father’s time and the defendant no.3 or for that matter, the other defendants have no right to issue settlement in favour of the 3 Second Appeal No. 457 of 2017 defendant no.1. Hence, the plaintiffs filed the suit for : (i) a decree of declaration that the plaintiffs have acquired occupancy rights in the suit land being tenants under the State of Bihar under the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act and as such, the State of Bihar and Local Revenue Officer should issue parcha in their names and they should not make any settlement in favour of the defendant no.1, (ii) a decree that the parcha in favour of defendant no.1 issued by the defendant no.3 with respect to 01 acre of land is illegal, null and void, (iii) a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, servants, men, agent from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs with respect to the suit property & (iv) for any other relief or reliefs. The plaintiffs further pleaded that they have acquired Khutkatti right by virtue of their reclamation of the land. 4 In his written statement, the defendant no.1 challenged the maintainability of the suit on various technical grounds and further pleaded that the suit land was gair abad land and was a fallow land but he denied the story of settlement of the land by some unknown landlord in favour of the father of the plaintiffs. The defendant no.1 further pleaded that the plaintiff never came in possession of the said land. The defendant no.1 pleaded that he is a Harijan and landless person and he was in possession of the disputed land since the year 1960 by constructing Khaprapose (tiled roofed) house thereon and also constructing another house and reclaimed the rest portion and grew vegetables upon the same and also planted several trees which is still standing over the suit land. The defendant no.1, applied to the Circle 4 Second Appeal No. 457 of 2017 Officer for settlement of the suit plot vide Settlement Case No. 75 (xi) (ii) of 1981-82 and after enquiry, a fresh map of the land was prepared and 01 acre of land in the southern portion was settled in favour of the defendant no.1. The defendant no.1 further pleaded that the plaintiffs having greedy eye over the land attempted to claim the land through one Baleshwar Prasad though it went against them. The defendant no.1 specifically pleaded that the order of settlement was passed in Settlement Case No. 10 of 1985-86/L.R. no. 24 of 1987-88 fixing a rent of Rs.1.90 paise. The defendant no.1 pleaded that the plaintiffs are still residing in KEW quarters. The defendant nos. 2 to 7 filed a joint written statement in the suit and they also challenged the maintainability of the suit on various technical grounds and denied the case of the plaintiffs. They also supported the pleadings of the defendant no.1 that the defendant no.1 being a sober and honest man with no land of his own, the defendant nos. 2 to 7 have settled the suit land measuring 01 acre in favour of the defendant no.1 and the plaintiffs have right or possession over the suit land. These defendants further pleaded that the plaintiffs are not the residents of Mouza- Laikdih, so no acquisition of any Korkar right over the suit land arose. These defendants also denied the entire case of the plaintiffs. 5 On the basis of the rival pleadings of the parties, the following four issues were framed by the trial court:- 1. 2. Whether the suit as framed is maintainable in its present form? Whether the plaintiffs have got valid cause of action for the present suit? 5 Second Appeal No. 457 of 2017 3. Whether the plaintiffs entitled to get a decree for declaration of plaintiffs occupancy right in the suit property being the tenants of Government under the C.N.T. Act as such the parcha with respect to one acre of land with the defendant no.1 by defendant no.3 is illegal, null and void, and also for getting decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants, from interfering with the plaintiffs’ peaceful possession over the suit land? Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get any other relief or reliefs? In support of their case, the plaintiffs examined eleven 4. 6 witnesses and proved the documents which have been marked Ext.1 to 11 while from the side of the defendants altogether six witnesses were examined and the defendants proved the documents which have been marked Ext. A to F. 7 The learned trial court first took up issue no.3 and after considering the evidence in the record observed that though the plaintiffs claim the title on the basis of a Hukumnama of the year, 1940 but the plaintiffs did not file any application before the government for the settlement with them nor there is any return ever submitted by the ex-landlord of the plaintiffs to show that the suit land has been settled with the plaintiffs by the Zamindar nor there is any document produced by the plaintiffs regarding the final publication of Parcha. The learned trial court also considered that the Hukumnama does not show boundary of the land settled nor any map is attached to it, so description of the land in the Hukumnama is vague and went on to hold that the plaintiffs are not entitled to get a decree for declaration of their occupancy right over the suit land being the tenants of the government and therefore, they are not entitled to get the Parcha of the defendant no.1, declared null and void. The learned trial court 6 Second Appeal No. 457 of 2017 thereafter took up issue no.2 and came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have got no valid cause of action for the suit. In respect of issue no.1, the learned trial court concluded that the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable and lastly the learned trial court took up issue no.4 and came to the conclusion that as the main issue no.3 as well as the other issues are decided against the plaintiffs, hence the plaintiffs are not entitled to get any relief but the defendants are entitled to receive costs and went on to dismiss the suit on contest with costs. 8 Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court, the plaintiff preferred Title Appeal No.105 of 2010 before the Principal District Judge, Dhanbad which was ultimately heard and disposed of by the learned first appellate court by the impugned judgment and decree. 9 The learned first appellate court made independent appreciation of the evidence in the record and considered that the rent receipts issued by the Zamindar, filed by the plaintiffs were issued after the vesting with the State of the suit land and there is absolutely no evidence in the record regarding payment of any land revenue to the government by the plaintiffs. The learned first appellate court considered that the contention of the plaintiffs that the defendant no.1 is outsider is contradicted by Ext.9 which is the report of the pleader commissioner; which shows that the defendant no.1 is in south of the suit land. Ext. 5, which is the objection petition filed before the settlement officer also goes against the plaintiffs, as therein, 7 Second Appeal No. 457 of 2017 it has been mentioned that the Parcha was issued in favour of the defendant no.1 after finding that he has been in the land concerned for 15 years. The learned first appellate court then considered that Ext.10 which is the R.S. Khata also negates the assertion of the plaintiffs regarding their status of Raiyats acquired through Khutkatti process as claimed by them as the Ext.10 shows that the land was Gair Abad Malik and old fallow land. The learned first appellate court next considered that the Ext.11 i.e. communication by the A.S.O. to Laxman Koeri showing the plaintiffs’ possession over the suit land was contradicted by Ext.F which is settlement parcha issued in favour of the defendant no.1 –Somrathi Ram with respect to the suit Khata no. 238 and plot no. 281, area 01 acre of Laikdih Mouza but documents in the record establishes that vide Settlement Case No. 75(ii)/1981-82, settlement was made in favour of the defendant no.1 which is supported by the oral testimony of the witnesses also and went on to hold that the plaintiffs in no way could establish their claim of right over the suit property, hence they are not entitled to the decree in the suit. The First appellate Court also observed that therefore, the parcha issued in favour of the defendant no.1 cannot be declared null and void and the plaintiffs are not entitled to get any permanent injunction with respect to the suit land against the defendants and dismissed the appeal. 10
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Shekhar Pd. Sinha, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that both the courts below could not appreciate the evidence in the record in their correct perspective. It is 8 Second Appeal No. 457 of 2017 then submitted that both the courts below ought to have held that settlement of land followed by rent receipts is strong proof of title. Hence, it is submitted that the impugned judgment and decree passed by both the courts below being contrary to law be set aside by formulating appropriate substantial question of law and the judgment and decree passed by both the courts below be set aside and the suit of the plaintiff be decreed. 11 Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that, it is a settled principle of law as has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sri S. Sita Maharani and Others v. Chhedi Mahto and others reported in AIR 1955 SC 328 that in a Hukumnama wherein the settlement of the Raiyati interest with any person had been reduced to writing; requires registration and if it is not registered, it is inadmissible in evidence and no evidence could be given as to its terms and the contents. 12 So far as the contention of the appellants regarding land revenue receipts issued by the ex-landlord is concerned, certainly after vesting of the land with the State, the ex-landlord has neither any occasion nor jurisdiction to collect rent or issue rent receipts as rightly observed by the courts below, the land revenue receipts issued by the ex-landlord are of date, after the vesting of the land with the State. Hence, under such circumstances, there is absolutely no evidence put forth by the plaintiffs regarding their title or possession over the suit land. On the other hand, the defendant filed documents 9 Second Appeal No. 457 of 2017 including the Ext.B which is the certified copy of order in land settlement case no. R-24/87-88 as also other connected documents and the settlement parcha issued in the name of the defendant no.1 marked Ext.F. 13 After carefully going through the materials in the record, this Court finds that the finding of fact arrived at by the learned first appellate court was not done by ignoring or excluding the relevant materials or by taking into consideration the irrelevant material. Nor the finding of fact arrived at by the learned first appellate court being the final court of facts outrageously defies the logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality incurring the blame of being perverse and in the absence of any perversity in the concurrent findings of facts by both the courts below, this Court do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the concurrent finding of facts returned by both the courts below. 14 After carefully going through the materials in the record, this Court do not find any substantial question of law being involved in this appeal. 15 Accordingly, this second appeal being without any merit is dismissed but under the circumstances without any costs. 16 Let a copy of this Judgment be sent to the court (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) concerned forthwith. High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 10th May, 2023 AFR/ Sonu-Gunjan/- 10