Jharkhand High Court
Bhola Mahato Aged About 65 Years vs Madan Mahato S/O Late Bhola Mahato on 3 September, 2024
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S.A. No.294 of 2019
------
(Against the judgment dated 11.07.2019 passed by learned District
Judge-IV, Dhanbad in Civil Appeal No.88 of 2017)
------
1. Bhola Mahato aged about 65 years, s/o Meghlal Mahato
2. Rajendra Mahato aged about 42 years, s/o Late Shankar Mahto
3. Birendra Mahato aged about 37 years, s/o Late Shankar Mahato
4. Shashi Mahato aged about 81 years, s/o Late Kahhu Mahato
5. Rabi Mahato aged about 63 years, s/o Late Upash Mahato
6. Biren Mahato aged about 46 years, s/o Late Upash Mahato
All are resident of village Baromasia, P.O. and P.S. Dhansar,
District-Dhanbad.
.... .... .... Appellants/ Appellants / Plaintiffs.
Versus
Madan Mahato s/o Late Bhola Mahato, resident of village
Baromasia, P.O. and P.S. Dhansar, District-Dhanbad.
.... .... .... Respondent / Respondent / Defendant
------
For the Appellants : Mr. Manjul Prasad, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Arbind Kr. Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Akhouri P. Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Ankit Rohan, Advocate
------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
By the Court:- Heard the learned senior counsel for the appellants.
2. This Second Appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 has been preferred against the judgment of affirmance dated 11.07.2019
passed by learned District Judge-IV, Dhanbad in Civil Appeal No.88 of 2017
whereby and where under the learned first appellate court has affirmed the
judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court, being Civil Judge
(Senior Division)- V, Dhanbad in Title Suit No.171 of 2006 and dismissed the
appeal.
3. The brief facts of the case is that the plaintiffs filed Title Suit No.171 of
2006 in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division)- V, Dhanbad with the prayer
for declaration of Raiyati title and interest, of the plaintiffs over the land
mentioned in Schedule A of the plaint and decree for confirmation of the
possession of the plaintiffs over the land mentioned in Schedule B of the plaint
and alternatively for recovery of possession of the land mentioned in Schedule
B of the plaint; thirdly for declaration that the defendants did not acquire any
right, title, interest over any portion of the land mentioned in Schedule A of the
plaint, through sale-deed No.2839 dated 08.03.1988 and fourthly for a decree
for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men and servants from
interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the land
mentioned in Schedule A land and not to make any construction over these
lands, cost of the suit and consequential reliefs.
4. The case of the plaintiffs in brief is that the suit Schedule A land was
originally recorded in the name of Aghnu Mahato. After the death of Aghnu
Mahato, his three sons namely Paran Mahato, Lakhu Mahato and Upesh
Mahato jointly inherited the Schedule A land. After vesting of the Zamindari
with the State, the ancestors of the plaintiffs paid rent to the State of Bihar. The
plaintiffs are the descendants of Aghnu Mahto. The defendant intended to
dispossess the plaintiffs from the land by claiming title over the same on the
basis of the sale-deed dated 08.03.1988 executed by Sushila Devi and Shanti
Bala Devi both daughters of Late Sripati Chakravorty who was the Khewatdar.
The plaintiffs claim that Sripati Chakravorty has no interest in Schedule A land
except receiving rent from Aghnu Mahato. Hence, the plaintiffs filed the suit.
5. The sole defendant denied all the allegations and took the plea that the
suit is barred by several technical reasons including being barred by limitation.
The defendant after purchase of the land has been in possession of the
purchased land and growing seasonal crops and vegetables and paying rent to
the Government after mutation of the land in his favour.
6. On the basis of the rival pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court
framed the following four issues:-
(i) Whether the suit is maintainable as framed?
(ii) Whether the plaintiffs have got valid cause of action for the suit or not?
(iii) Whether the plaintiffs have got their valid raiyati title and interest upon
the suit land more fully described in Schedule-A of the plaint?
(iv) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for decree of declaration and
confirmation of possession upon the suit land, more fully described in the
plaint?
7. In support of their case, the plaintiffs altogether examined four witnesses
besides proving the documents which have been marked as Ext.1 to Ext. 4.
From the side of the defendant, two witnesses have been examined besides
proving the documents which have been marked Ext. A to D.
8. The learned trial court first took up issue Nos.(iii) and (iv) together and
after considering the evidence in the record, came to the conclusion that the
plaintiffs have failed to prove their case of having any title over the suit land
and decided the issue Nos.(iii) and (iv) in favour of the defendant and against
the plaintiffs.
9. The learned trial court next took up the issue Nos.(i) and (ii) together and
held that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief and the suit is not
maintainable and dismissed the suit.
10. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial
court dated 28.08.2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)- V,
Dhanbad in Title Suit No.171 of 2006, the plaintiffs preferred Civil Appeal
No.88 of 2017 in the court of Principal District Judge, Bokaro which was
ultimately heard and disposed of by the learned first appellate court being the
District Judge-IV, Dhanbad by the impugned judgment as already indicated
above.
11. The learned first appellate court after considering the materials available
in the record and submissions made before its, formulated the following two
points for determination:-
(I) Whether the appellants/plaintiffs have a valid right, title,
interest and possession over the suit land?
(II) Whether the sale deed No.2839 dated 08/03/1988 confers any
right, title or interest over any portion of the suit land described in
Schedule- A of the plaint?
12. The learned first appellate court upon making the independent
appreciation of the evidence in the record came to the conclusion that the
documents produced by the plaintiffs show that the plaintiffs have title over
only 62 decimals of land and not over entire 93 decimals of land. On the basis
of the evidence in the record, the learned trial court came to the conclusion that
Aghnu Mahato was not the sole Raiyat of the suit land but he was only a
Bhagidar and a person holding Ardhbhag (half share), therefore, Aghnu Mahato
is not occupancy raiyat and cannot acquire occupancy right and the sons of
Aghnu Mahato have also purchased the land from the ex-landlord which also
corroborates the same. So, the plaintiffs claiming their title through Aghnu
Mahato have also no right, title and interest, therefore, the sale-deed of the
defendant which has been marked Ext. B is a valid document, as it has been
executed by the rightful owners being the legal heirs of Sripati Chakravorty
and came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have got no valid right, title and
interest over the Schedule A land and that the sale-deed marked Ext. B
(No.2839) dated 08.03.1988 confers valid right, title and interest over 31
decimals of land mentioned in Schedule B of the plaint by virtue of the Exhibit
-B and dismissed the appeal as already indicated above.
13. Learned senior counsel for the appellants submits that both the courts
below have erred in not considering the pleadings and evidence of the
plaintiffs/appellants in right perspective and have arrived at erroneous
finding that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their title, 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 after formulating appropriate
substantial question of law.
14. Having heard the submissions of the learned senior counsel for the
appellants made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials
available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that as has rightly been
held by both the courts below; the plaintiffs could not file any document of
ownership or title in respect of the Schedule B land of the plaint. The
documents filed by the plaintiffs are only in respect of 62 decimals of land out
of the said plot consisting an area of 93 decimals. Whereas the remaining 31
decimals of land has been purchased by the defendant from the lawful owners
thereof and the ancestors of the plaintiffs have also purchased (2/3rd) two-third
out of the 93 decimals of land i.e. to say 62 decimals of land through two sons
of Uday Chakravorty namely Bhupati Chakravorty and Jagbandhu
Chakravorty and left the share of Sripati Chakravorty who was the other son
of Uday Chakravorty and Sripati Chakravorty has sold his share of 31
decimals of land the defendant.
15. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that both
the courts below have not considered any inadmissible evidence nor have they
excluded from consideration any admissible evidence, hence, the concurrent
finding of facts arrived at by both the courts below cannot be termed as
perverse.
16. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that there
is absolutely no substantial question of law involved in this Second Appeal.
17. Accordingly, this Second Appeal, being without any merit, is dismissed
but under the circumstances without any costs.
18. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the courts concerned forthwith.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 03rd of September, 2024
AFR/ Animesh-Abhiraj
