Jharkhand High Court
Smt. Kumud Kumari vs Smt. Bageshwari Devi on 2 April, 2025
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
First Appeal No. 117 of 2024
Smt. Kumud Kumari, aged about 41 years, W/o Sri Praveen
Kumar Thakur, R/o Ratan Niwas, Indra Nagar, Itki Road, Bazara,
P.O.- Hehal, P.S. Pandra, O.P. Sukhdeonagar, District- Ranchi,
Jharkhand, Bharat; At present residing at Devakinandan Gali, Vill-
Simalia, Circle- Ratu, P.S. Ratu, Ranchi, Jharkhand, Bharat,
AADHAR No. 839248023493; Mobile No. 9113751389.
... ... Plaintiff/Appellant
Versus
Smt. Bageshwari Devi, aged about 68 years, W/o Sri Dinesh
Pathak, Permanently R/o Village- Rukhai, P.O.- 7, P.S.- Chandi,
District- Nawada, State-Bihar, Bharat; At present R/o Quarter No.
E/233/II, Sector-2, Dhurwa, P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.- Dhurwa, Ranchi-
834004, Jharkhand, Bharat; AADHAR No. 905148356161
... ... Defendant/Respondent
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Appellant : Mr. Pranay Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Anul Kumar Singh, Advocate
---
08/02.04.2025
1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
2. This appeal has been filed against the judgement dated
24.02.2024 (decree signed on 01.03.2024) passed by the learned Civil
Judge (Senior Division)-I, Ranchi in Original Suit No. 663 of 2023.
3. The appellant is the plaintiff in the original suit.
4. The plaintiff/appellant has filed the suit seeking declaration of
right, title and interest of the plaintiff over the suit property. The suit
property as per the schedule-I is as follows:-
The Schedule-I
The Suit Land
Khata No. Plot No. Sub Plot No. Area
194 3773 3773/B/32 10 Decimal
Boundary
North:- Sub Plot No. 3773/B/33.
South:- 20 Feet Wide Road.
East:- Village Border of Village- Bazara.
West:- Sub Plot No. 3773/B 31.
Other Details:- It is submitted with emphasis that the land
is surrounded by concrete boundary wall and there is
many solid structures inside the same together
constituting house of the Plaintiff wherein the Plaintiff
resides.
The land is situated at Village- Simalia, Thana No. 139, P.S.-
Ratu, Circle - Ratu, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand, India.
5. It was the specific case of the plaintiff that the defendant
through the registered sale deed No. 9078 dated 20.07.1984 purchased
the suit property from its erstwhile owner and got the name mutated
in the Rent Roll of the State vide Mutation case No. 203 (R) 27 of
1990-91 vide order dated 02.07.1990 of the then Circle Officer, Kanke
and since then she paid rent to the State. Thus, defendant was the
owner of the suit land with peaceful possession thereon since
20.07.1984.
6. The further case of the plaintiff is that in the year 2005 the
defendant was in need of money and had publicly announced for the
sale of the suit land in which many intending purchasers including the
plaintiff contacted the defendant wherein the plaintiff proved herself
as the highest bidder and negotiated the sale of the suit land which was
finalized with the plaintiff in the year 2005. On 10.05.2005, the
plaintiff paid the entire agreed consideration amount i.e. Rs.1,51,000/-
to the defendant and upon payment of the entire consideration amount,
the defendant assured the plaintiff that she would execute proper
conveyance in favour of the plaintiff within a fortnight transferring the
suit land in her favour. Despite, this the defendant did not execute the
sale deed on one pretext or the other.
7. It was further case of the plaintiff that when the defendant did
not turn to execute any sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, seeing no
way out, the plaintiff forcefully entered into the suit land against the
will and permission of the defendant i.e. hostile to the true-owner on
23.06.2005 and took forceful possession of the suit land on that day
i.e. on 23.06.2005 and since then the plaintiff started to enjoy the suit
land as owner thereof openly known to the world at large and hostile
to the true owner and continued to enjoy the same peacefully.
8. It was the plaintiff that since 23.06.2005 the plaintiff has been
hitherto peacefully as its absolute owner hostile to the true-owner has
been enjoying the property and has also constructed boundary wall
and house.
9. It was further case of the plaintiff that the claim of adverse
possession of the plaintiff on the suit land satisfied basic ingredients
i.e. Nec Vi, Nec Clam, Nec Pre Cario during the entire period of 12
years commencing from 23.06.2005 and culminating on 23.06.2017
i.e. up to competing the period of the title of the plaintiff by
prescription to which the defendant has acquiesced by not taking any
legal action for more than twelve years.
10. The further case of the plaintiff was that at the time of receipt of
the entire consideration amount for the suit land, the defendant had
handed over the original of the registered sale deed dated 20.07.1984
to the plaintiff by which the defendant had purchased the suit land.
Additionally, the defendant had also given to the plaintiff an
acknowledgement of receipt of full consideration money dated
10.05.2005 with respect to the suit land and the defendant had further
delivered to the plaintiff the original of the correction slip showing
mutation of the defendant pertaining to the suit land as well as the then
available Government Rent Receipt of the suit land issued in favour of
the defendant. Save and except these documents, the plaintiff has no
other document as the same were in custody of the defendant only.
11. It is further case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff has only de-
facto possession over the suit land and therefore, the demand thereof
in the Register-2 of the State of Jharkhand was allowed to be run in
name of the defendant and de-facto possession thereon has been with
the plaintiff for last more than 12 years. It was asserted that the
plaintiff has absolute title on the suit land with unfettered interest,
unimpeachable right and peaceful possession. The reference was also
made to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported
in 2019 (9) SCC 488 [Krishnamurthy S Setlur (D) by LRS vs. O.V.
Narasimha Setty (D) by LRS] that a civil suit seeking declaration of
title on the basis of law of adverse possession can very well be
instituted.
12. It has also been asserted in paragraph 16 of the plaint that on
10.07.2023 upon visit of the defendant to the plaintiff, it was for the
first time that the defendant orally claimed the suit land exclusively as
her own based on the fact that she has not yet executed any sale deed
to that effect in favour of the plaintiff and consequently, the cause of
action for this Suit stemmed forth on 10.07.2023 when the defendant
made false claim on the suit land. As per plaint, the value of the suit
land is not less than Rs.40,00,000/-.
13. The suit was admitted on 31.07.2023 and the notice was issued
to the sole defendant directing to put up the case on 30.08.2023. On
the very first date i.e. 30.08.2023 a joint compromise petition was said
to have been filed and on that day itself, the written statement under
order XII rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed stating
as under:-
"1. That, by the benevolent interference of well-wishers of both
the parties to this suit, the dispute has wholly been settled
outside the Court lawfully.
2. That, the Defendant does, hereby, admit and accept the entire
claim of the Plaintiff in Toto.
3. That, the Defendant has no objection, if the Suit is decreed in
favour of the Plaintiff granting her all the reliefs sought for in
the Plaint."
14. The order-sheet further reveals that the matter was sent for
mediation and the order dated 03.10.2023 reveals that the meditation
was successful.
15. The copy of the aforesaid joint compromise petition dated
30.08.2023 has been placed along with the Memo of appeal and same
statements have been made in the joint compromise petition as was
stated in the aforesaid written statement.
16. However, the learned court did not decree the suit in terms of
compromise inspite of the fact that the written statement was filed
only under Order XII Rule 6 and a joint compromise petition was also
filed which was sent for mediation where the joint compromise was
confirmed and the confirmation of joint compromise was also
recorded in the order sheet, still the court did not decree the suit in
terms of compromise. The order dated 10.10.2023 reveals that the
learned court was of the view that the mediation has been successful
and therefor, there is no point to frame any issue.
17. Consequently, the learned court did not frame any issue and
vide order dated 22.11.2023 directed the plaintiff to adduce evidence.
18. Pursuant to the direction of the learned trial court the plaintiff
examined herself as a sole witness and exhibited the following
documents: -
Exhibit-1:- Acknowledgment receipt of money.
Exhibit-2:- Original Registered Sale deed No. 9078, dated
20.07.1984.
Exhibit 3, 3(a) and 3(b):- Original Rent Receipt.
Exhibit-4:- Original Correction Slip Showing Mutation Case
No. 203 R 27 of 1990-91.
19. The defendant has also adduced one evidence i.e. herself and
defendant during her cross examination had exhibited
Acknowledgment of Receipt of Money and her signature as Exhibit-
A.
20. The learned trial court thereafter considered the main issue as to
whether the plaintiff has got valid right, title and interest over the suit
land and considered the basic ingredients for declaration of adverse
possession and observed that the plaintiff in paragraph 6 of the plaint
as stated that on 23.06.2005 the property came in possession of the
plaintiff and that at present there has been compromise between the
parties and both the parties have given evidence on the basis of
compromise and the defendant has accepted all the averments made
by the plaintiff. The learned court thereafter referred to section 101 of
the Evidence Act and was of the view that the plaintiff has to establish
the case on his own. The learned court thereafter observed that even if
on 23.06.2005 is taken as a date on which the plaintiff came in
possession of the property and was in possession of the property since
then and that the owner did not object to such possession but the
plaintiff has not produced any evidence to that effect and the learned
court was of the view that merely because the defendant has agreed to
the statement of the plaintiff through compromise, the same does not
establish the case of the plaintiff that she was in possession of the suit
property since 23.06.2005.
21. The learned court also considered that the plaintiff had not
produced any evidence that the defendant was the owner of the
property and was also of the view that merely because the defendant
had agreed with respect to the sale deed on the basis of which it could
not be said that the property belonged to the plaintiff and that the
plaintiff was the owner of the property. The learned court observed
that neither the plaintiff nor the defendant could prove their ownership
with regard to the property. The learned court also observed that the
possession must be continuous and uninterrupted and the plaintiff did
not adduce any evidence that she was in continuous and uninterrupted
possession since 23.06.2005 and merely on account of the admission
by the defendant it could not be said that the plaintiff was in
possession of the property since 23.06.2005. The plaintiff had also
stated that the plaintiff had constructed a house over the property but
no document in support of that including the tax receipt submitted to
municipality or the electricity bill etc. was filed.
22. The learned trial court after considering the documents and
evidences produced on behalf of the parties had decided the issue No.
IV against the plaintiff and so far as other issues were concerned,
since no opposition was made from the side of the defendant, other
issues were decided in favour of the plaintiff. The learned court also
recorded that the suit was dismissed on contest.
23. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the
impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court is ex-facie not in
accordance with the provision of the CPC. He has submitted that once
the compromise petition is filed then under such circumstances the
court has no other option but to decree the suit in terms of
compromise. He has also submitted that the compromise between the
parties is well established inasmuch as no contesting written statement
was filed , rather, the written statement was filed under Order XII
Rule 6 of CPC and in the same terms the joint compromise petition
was filed on the same date and then the matter was sent for mediation
and after mediation it came back to the court, the court specifically
recorded that no issues were required to be framed and asked the
plaintiff to adduce evidence and ultimately the case was decided on
the aforesaid issues which was framed only while giving the
judgment.
24. The learned counsel has relied upon the judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court (1991) 3 SCC 338 [K. Venkata Seshiah Vs.
Kanduru Ramasubbamma (Dead) By LRS] and has referred
paragraph 8 of this judgment which is quoted as under:-
"8. Counsel for the alienees has taken the stand that the said
alienations are valid and the transferees have become owners of
the property and has even maintained that there have been
improvements of the property by the alienees. He sought to rely
on certain decisions which on being referred to were found to be
totally inapplicable to the facts of the case. On the other hand,
we find that a similar question arose before the Orissa High
Court in the case of Bhaja Govinda Maikap v. Janaki Dei where
the power of the court under Order XXIII, Rule 3 of the Code of
Civil Procedure in the face of an objection of one of the parties
to the compromise was considered. Relying upon several
authorities of different High Courts and one of the Privy Council
referred to in the decision, the High Court held that once the
court was satisfied that there was a compromise it was for the
court to record the same and no option lay before the court to
act otherwise."
25. The learned counsel has further submitted that there was no
occasion for the court to enter into the legality and validity of the
claim of the plaintiff with regard to adverse possession once the claim
of adverse possession stood admitted by the defendant by way of
compromise and also by way of written statement.
26. The learned counsel has further submitted that the impugned
judgment be set aside and the suit be decreed in terms of the
compromise.
27. He has further submitted that in case the suit is decreed in terms
of compromise there would be no occasion to get the compromise
decree registered under the provisions of Registration Act. He has
submitted that once the claim of adverse possession stood admitted by
the defendant then the claim stood crystalized prior to filing of the suit
and the suit was essentially a declaratory suit and therefore, by virtue
of the decree no title is conferred or created in favour of the plaintiff.
The learned counsel has relied upon the judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case reported in (2020) 10 SCC 264
Mohammade Yusuf and others Vs. Raj Kumar and others and he
submits that in the said judgment the earlier judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of (2019) 8 SCC 729 Ravinder Kaur
Grewal and others vs. Manjit Kaur and others has also been
considered by which the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the plea of
adverse possession can also be used as a sword and it is not only
available as a shield . The learned counsel has submitted that in such
circumstances there would be no requirement to get the compromise
decree registered in the registry office.
28. The learned counsel has further submitted that it is only in case
where the compromise decree is used as a device to avoid payment of
stamp duty the decree would still be registered. He has submitted that
in the present case although there has been transaction of money with
regard to the suit property but the possession was claimed by way of
adverse possession and therefore the right stood crystalized in favour
of the plaintiff and such right stood acknowledged and admitted by the
defendant in the uncontested written statement and also by way of
joint compromise.
29. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has
submitted that he has taken instructions from his client and it is not in
dispute that the joint compromise petition was filed and the defendant
did not contest the suit by filing a formal written statement. He has
fully supported the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant.
30. The judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Mukesh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Another passed in
Civil Appeal No. 14808 of 2024 decided on 20th December, 2024 has
been shown to the learned counsel for the parties and they submit that
they shall examine this judgment and if there is any distinguishable
feature, they shall advance their argument further tomorrow.
31. Post this case on 03.04.2025 for further arguments and
consideration at 10:30 AM.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Rakesh/-
