Mostt Sarwari Kuar @ Anarkali Kuar Aged ... vs Mahendra Prasad Yadav
2025 Latest Caselaw 4963 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Mostt Sarwari Kuar @ Anarkali Kuar Aged ... vs Mahendra Prasad Yadav on 17 April, 2025

Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

                                                                    2025:JHHC:11694




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
                           ---

Second Appeal No.164 of 2024

----

1.Mostt Sarwari Kuar @ Anarkali Kuar aged about 81 years w/o late Jagdish Tiwari

2.Uma Shankar @ Pappu Tiwari aged about 48 years, son of late Jagdish Tiwari

3.Anish Kumar Tiwari @ Piku Tiwari aged about 46 years, son of late Jagdish Tiwari

4.Bijay Kumar Tiwari @ Pintu Tiwary aged about 39 years son of late Jagdish Tiwari

5.Smt. Lakshmi Devi aged about 54 years wife of Ajay Kumar Tiwari

6.Mina Kumar now Meena Devi aged about 53 years wife of Devendra Pandey, daughter of late Jagdish Tiwari

7.Priyanka Devi aged about 36 years wife of Shashi Kant Dwivedi d/o late Jagdish Tiwari

8.Suman Devi aged about 34 years wife of Santosh Kr. Choubey d/o late Jagdish Tiwari Sl.Nos.1 to 4 are resident of Vill Nenuwa, PO Harinamanr, PS Chainpur, District Garhwa Sl.No.5 is resident of Vill Belhara PO Belhara PS Garhwa, District Garhwa Sl.No.6 is resident of Village Sonpurwa PO Garhwa PS Garhwa Dist Garhwa Sl.No.7 is resident of Vill Wyndhomganj, PO and PS Wyndhomganj, Dist. Sonbhadra, U.P Sl.No.8 is resident of Vill and PO Dewagana, PS Meral, Dist. Garhwa .... Appellants/Defendants

-- Versus --

1.Mahendra Prasad Yadav, s/o late Badri Prasad Yadav

2.Girwar Prasad Yadav, son of late Badri Prasad Yadav

3.Pradeep Kumar Yadav, son of late Badri Prasad Yadav

4.Upendra Kumar Yadav son of late Badri Prasad Yadav All resident of vill Khura Kala, PO Harinamar PS Chainpur District Palamau

5.Pramila Devi wife of Sheo Shankar Yadav, d/o late Badri Prasad Yadav, resident of Vill and PO Chiyanki, PS Daltonganj, District Palamau

6.Bina Devi wife of Ameshwar Yadav d/o late Badri Prasad Yadav resident

-1- Second Appeal No.164 of 2024 2025:JHHC:11694

of Vill Ranpura PO Ranpura PS Chiniya, District Garhwa

7.Bhola Prasad Yadav @ Bhola Nath Yadav, son of late Thakuri Mahto

8.Chandradeo Yadav son of late Ram Kewhwar Yadav

9.Mostt. Premni Devi wife of late Kamakhya Yadav

10.Sanjay Yadav, son of late Kamakhya Yadav

11.Sudhir Yadav son of late Kamakhya Yadav Sl.8 to 11 are r/o Vill Khura Kala, PO Harinamar PS Chainpur District Palamau

12.Geeta Devi wife of Arvind Yadav d/o late Kamakhya Yadav, r/o Vill Karanpura, PO Hoita, PS Ramuna Dist. Palamau

13.Sabita Devi Wife of Umesh Yadav d/o late Kamakhya Yadav, r/o Vill Raksi, PO Ramkanda, Dist. Garhwa

14.Rani Devi, w/o Najendra Yadav, d/o late Kamakhya Yadav

15.Sushma Kumari wife of Kamlesh Yadav d/o late Kamakhya Yadav Sl.no.7 to 15 r/o Vill Koindri, PO Bhojpur, PS Nagar Untari, Dist. Garhwa

16.Chhotan Yadav, son of late Ramkeshwar Yadav

17.Bishun Yadav son of late Ramkeshwar Yadav

18.Gorakh Yadav son of late Ramkeshar Yadav Sl.16 to 18 All r/o Vill Khura Kala, PO Harinamar PS Chainpur District Garahwa

19.Dhanmati Devi wife of Nirmal Yadav, r/o Village Sijo PO, PS Ranka, District Garhwa

20.Indrati Devi wife of Doman Yadav, R/O Vill Lamipatra, Tola Jhariutanr, PO Lamipatra, PS Paton Dist. Palamau

21.Chandrawati Devi wife of Satyanarayan Yadav r/o Vill Basdah, PO Palhe, PS Paton, District Palamau

22.Rajeshwari Tiwari, r/o Vill Nenua, PO Harinamar, PS Chainpur, Distt. Palamau, r/o Vill. Ekdari, PS Hussainabad, Distt. Palamau.... Respondents

----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

---

            For the Petitioner        :- Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta, Advocate
                                         Miss Swati Singh, Advocate
                                         Mr. Rakesh Kr. Singh, Advocate
                                         Mr. Surya Prakash, Advocate
            For the Respondents       :- --

                                        ----
05/17.04.2025     Heard Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta the learned counsel appearing on

         behalf of the appellants.


                                       -2-              Second Appeal No.164 of 2024
                                                                        2025:JHHC:11694

2. This Second Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and

decree dated 24.08.2024 (decree signed on 06.09.2024) passed by the learned

Principal District Judge, Palamau, Daltonganj in Title Appeal No.15 of 2012,

whereby he has been pleased to dismiss the said appeal and affirmed the

judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division-II,

Daltonganj, Palamau in Title Suit No.1 of 1994, the judgment passed on

31.01.2012 and decree dated 18.02.2012 decreeing the suit in favour of the

plaintiff/respondents.

3. Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the appellants submits that both the learned court have failed to prove by the

cogent evidence to dispel the burden of casting their right, title and interest

over the suit land. According to him, the law point involved is with regard to

Exhibit-3, 3/A and 3/B which were the documents of revenue authorities and

these documents have not been correctly interpreted by both the learned

courts. On this ground, he submits that this second appeal may kindly be

admitted.

4. Title Suit No.1 of 1994 was instituted by the respondent/plaintiff for

declaration to the effect that the suit land is occupancy raiyati land of the

plaintiffs and plaintiffs have only right, title and interest thereon. The suit land

is the land of khata no.1, plot nos.43, 45, 46, 49, 50 total area 8.80 acres

situated at Village Doki, P.S. Chainpur, District Palamau and the other prayers.

5. From the judgment of the learned first appellate court it transpires

that the case of the plaintiffs was that plaintiffs/ respondents land of khata

no.1, plot no.43, 45,46, 49, 50 total area 8.80 acres situated in village Doki, P.S

Chainpur, District Palamau is the suit land and plaintiffs are sons of Thakuri

Mahto and plaintiffs and their father was settled raiyat of village Doki and they

reclaimed Gairmanzuruwa Malik land in village Doki and remained in cultivating

possession thereon. It is stated that Thakuri Mahto applied for settlement and

after proper istehar and inquiry, the Revenue 0fficer and staffs raiyati

-3- Second Appeal No.164 of 2024 2025:JHHC:11694

settlement was made in favour of Thakuri Mahto as follows:

Settlement Case No. Parwana Granted on Plot No. Area in acres VIII/76 of 1958-59 20.10.1959 43 0.26 45 0.41 VIII/77 of 1958-59 19.11.1959 49/1 1.37 49/2 2.70 VIII/78 of 1958-59 19.11.1959 49/3 1.48 50 1.69 46 0.89

Vide above Settlement case the land became settled Land of Thakuri Mahto,

plaintiffs Rajeshwar Pd. Yadav and on the basis of settlement regular demand

was opened in their names in Register II of State of Bihar. It is also stated that

Thakuri Mahto died in year 1984 and the suit land consisting plot no., 43 and

46 devolved upon his four sons and his brother Rajeshwar Prasad Yadav

through inheritance and Later on Rajeshwar Pd. Yadav had sold his share to

plaintiff no.1 vide registered sale deed no. 6711 dated 19-06-1992 and in this

way plaintiff no. 1 possessed half share in the entire suit land and plaintiff no. 2

and 3 got 1 /4 share and defendants have no right, title and possession over

the suit land. It is also stated that defendant and late Jagdish Tiwari was not

settled raiyat of village, therefore, there is no question of owning any land in

village Doki. It is stated that Ramkishun Tiwari, who was brother of late

Jagdish Tiwari, was Karamchari and who in course of time became Circle

Inspector and some maneuvering and manipulation was made at the instance

of said Ramkishun Tiwari and name of defendant no.1 and late Jagdish Tiwari

was entered in Register II fraudulently without any order of competent

authority. It is also case of plaintiff that for avoiding any future complication for

parrell demand, plaintiffs have approached the Revenue Authority for

cancellation of illegal demand running in the name of defendant no.1 and late

Jagdish Tiwari and Misc. Case no. 128/84- 85 was registered before Additional

Collector, Palamau and on the basis of collusive and false report of C.0,

Chainpur, Additional Collector, Vide order dated 27-12- 1988 without

appreciating the real facts, refused to cancel the parrel demand the matter is

-4- Second Appeal No.164 of 2024 2025:JHHC:11694

adjudicated by Civil Court relating to right, title and interest of plaintiffs, then

the plaintiff have filed the suit.

6. The case of the appellant/defendants before the learned first

appellate court was that village Doki was the part of Ranka Estate and the said

Ranka Estate settled the land of khata no. 1 plot no. 38,41,42, 43, 44, 45, 46,

49, 50 and 21 area 16.80 acres in favour of Jagdish Tiwari and Rajeshwar

Tiwari of village Nenuwa and Settlement/Hukumnama Parwana was granted on

7 Sawan 1357 Fasli long before the date of vesting by Rani Gunjeshwari Devi

w/o Raja Bahadur Giriwar Narain Singh of Ranka Estate, which was granted to

said Rani for her expenses and annual rent beside cess was fixed at

Rs.10/- and thus the land became raiyati land of Jagdish Tiwari and Rajeshwar

Tiwari. It is also case of defendant that no reclamation having been done by

plaintiffs or the land was validly ever settled in their favour or any istehar was

published or inquiry was held. There was no regular demand in the name of

plaintiffs and they were never in possession over the suit land. It is also case of

defendant that plaintiffs have filed Misc. Case before Addl. Collector Palamau

which was failed. It is also stated that plaintiffs had made allegation against the

then C.0 Chainpur and Addl. Collector without any basis and lastly prayed to

dismiss the suit of plaintiff.

7. The learned trial court has framed seven issues to decide the said suit

and the issue no.6 was with regard to, whether the plaintiffs are having right,

title and interest over the suit land or not?

8. The learned trial court has appreciated the oral evidences of PWs and

DWs as well as the exhibits marked on behalf of both the sides. While

appreciating the issues no.6, which was the main issue, the learned court has

appreciated the fact that the learned counsel for the defendants has argued

and contended that undisputedly the land in question is situated at Village Doki

and before vesting it under the Ranka Estate it was also found to be not in

dispute that several villages including the village Doki was granted to Smt. Rani

-5- Second Appeal No.164 of 2024 2025:JHHC:11694

Gangeshwari Devi for her expenses. Rani Ganjeshwari Devi on 7th Sawan 1357

Fasli granted the Parwana regarding the 16.80 acres of land from different plots

of khata no.1 which also cover the suit land in favour of Jagdish Tiwari and

Rajeshwar Tiwari. The settlement was brought on record as Exhibit-B. It was

also contended that the proprietor also received the rent and also granted the

rent receipt in token of payment of rent. The defendants also brought on

record the rent receipt issued by ex-land lord in the name of Jagdish Tiwari and

others i.e. Exhibit-C and Exhibit-C/1. Thus, the argument of the defendants

have been taken into consideration in paragraph no.12 by the learned trial

court. He has also further appreciated the Exhibit-E addressed to the Circle

Officer which was in the form of complaint. In paragraph no.13, learned trial

court has further appreciated the fact that vide settlement case no.77 of 1958-

59, 78 of 1958-59, the plaintiffs have been granted Hukumnama and demand

having been opened in their names and since then are paying rent regularly to

the Estate and it was the case of the plaintiffs that full brother of Jagdish Tiwari

namely Ram Kishun Tiwari and Circle Inspector and Kanoongo under his

influence were adopting fraudulent devices and they falsely opened the

demand in the name of Rajeshwar Tiwari and Jagdish Tiwari. The plaintiffs

have brought on record three Parwana /Hukumnama, Exhitib-3 and Exhitib-3/B.

The Demand Register was also opened on the basis of the aforesaid three

settlement cases as, Exhitib-4(a), Exhitib-4(b) and Exhitib-4(c). Return filed by

the ex-land lord, Exhitib-5 was also brought by the plaintiffs showing that the

plaintiffs are in possession of the land of Village Doki at the time of vesting and

they have applied for fixation of rent. The learned court has found that the

defendants have not brought on record anything contrary to that which can

prove the documents produced by the plaintiffs to be forged and fabricated. So

far the finding of the Circle Officer and the Additional Collector regarding the

fact that the Deputy Commissioner namely T. Bhagat was never posted at

Palamau was a surprising fact before the learned trial court. The learned court

-6- Second Appeal No.164 of 2024 2025:JHHC:11694

has found that it was the duty of the Additional Collector to investigate into the

matter and then only observe the same. The learned court has further

appreciated Clause-B of Sub section 8 of Section 3 of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act

with regard to Hukumnana/ Parwana and found that it is written order/

certificate regarding settlement of land to the settllee. So far the contention of

the defendants about c.c. of settlement record is concerned, the learned court

has appreciated the fact that once the Hukumnama was brought on record and

in pursuance thereof, the settlee has been recommended raiyat of government

and demand was also running in their names, there is nothing on record to

doubt the authenticity of the plaintiffs documents. The learned trial court has

further appreciated that defendants themselves submitted that the demand for

an area of 16.80 acre of land of khata no.1 of village-Doki was running and

rent up to 1983-84 is fully paid and on the basis of the said rent, the receipts

and C.C. of Register-II, the C.O. passed the order on 29-11-1984 that to

continue the demand as was running earlier and Halka Karamchari was directed

to issue correction slip accordingly. But the learned court has found that on

perusal of Exts. A to A/3, transpires that the rent in arrear have been realized.

The learned court has stated that how defendants themselves admit that rent

up to 1983-84 have been paid which is supported by Exts. F, F/l and G. The

learned court has further found that the defendants have not been able to

explain how all the four rent receipts Exts. A to A/3 issued only in the year,

1983-84 and in view of that the learned court has found that somewhere fraud

have been played. With regard to 16.80 acres of land, the defendants have

claimed that it was the Gairmazaruwa Malik land of khata no. 1 comprising of

different plot from ex-land lord through Hukumnama dated 7 Sawan 1357 Fasli.

On perusal of Ext.B (Hukumnama), the learned court has found that it was

dated 1 Magh 1345 Fasli corresponding to the English Calendar year 1938,

however, in the written statement and in examination in chief, the defendant

deposed that they have been granted settlement on 7 Sawan 1357 Fasali. The

-7- Second Appeal No.164 of 2024 2025:JHHC:11694

learned court has further appreciated the fact that the defendant no.1 while

depositing as D.W. 1 in the year, 2011, stated on oath that on that day he was

about 65 years and the learned court has found that in view of that, the said to

be born in the year, 1946. The learned court has further appreciated the fact

about the statement made in the deposition and if it is said to be correct, i.e. 7

Sawan 1357 Fasali (corresponding year, 1950), then the defendant no. 1 the

settlee was about 4 years old and would have been in the lap of his mother and

in view of that, the learned court has found as to how it is possible the land

was settled in the name of a four year old infant. The learned court has further

appreciated the rent receipt issued by the ex-land-lord Exts.C and C/1 which

was the rent paid in the year 1357 Fasali, 1361 and 1362, it means, English

Calendar year, 1956. When the State was vested in the year, 1952 and

possession was taken by the Government, the learned court has found that in

view of that how rent has been paid to the ex-land-lord in the year, 1956. So

far as the proprietor of Ranka Estate for the lands of village-Doki, is concerned,

the Ext.5. has been brought on record by the plaintiffs and in the return the

defendants are nowhere have been shown as settlee/raiyat in possession of the

land in question, rather plaintiffs are shown to be in possession of suit land in

the remarks column whereas it was clearly mentioned that plaintiffs have

applied for settlement. In view of that the learned court has disapproved the

case of the appellants/defendants. Considering all these aspects, the learned

trial court has been pleased to decree the suit in favour of the plaintiffs.

9. Aggrieved with the judgment of the learned trial court, the appellants

herein preferred Title Appeal No.15 of 2012 which was decided by the

judgment dated 24.8.2024 and the learned appellate court has been pleased to

dismiss the said appeal. The learned first appellate court has further

appreciated the facts as well as the documentary and oral evidence led on

behalf of both the sides and in paragraph no.11, the learned court has further

made the points to determine the said appeal. The learned first appellate court

-8- Second Appeal No.164 of 2024 2025:JHHC:11694

has appreciated the Exhibit-3 series and Exhibit-4 series which have been

supported by Exhibit-5 series which is Return. The learned first appellate court

has found that Exhibit-5 has been mentioned as return by the ex-land lord by

the learned trial court, however, it was found to be register of Gairmajuruwa

Malik of Village Doki thana no.70 and in the different column the land was said

to be in possession of raiyat and it was mentioned as sl.no.43 and 45 the name

of the raiyat and possessors of land and includes the name of Thakuri Mahto,

Badri Yadav, Bhola Prasad Yadav, Kameshwar Yadav and Rajeshwar Yadav. The

learned court has further found that so far plot nos.43, 45, 46, 48 and 50 were

being cultivated since long and it was mentions-"Mal Bandhane ke Waste

Darkhast Hai" and the learned court has found that in view of Exhibit-5

proves the fact that the father of the plaintiffs and plaintiffs have cultivated

those lands and they had filed application for settlement of land which was

pending and later on the land vested in State but their applications remained

pending and the State Government settled vide Parwana issued by T. Bhagat on

12.10.1958 (Ext.3,3/A and 3/B) and that was followed by opening of Register II

on the basis of their Parwana (Ext.4, 4/a, 4/b, 4/c and 4/d) and consequence

thereof has issued rent receipt (Exhibits 1 to 1/f) and in view of that the

learned first appellate court has found that the plaintiffs have successfully

proved the same by way of pleadings and evidence the land was Gairmajuruwa

Malik which was reclaimed by them and they had filed application before the

ex-landlord for fixation of rent and settlement and in the meantime the

notification section 3(1) of B.L.R. Act the Estate vested in the year 1952 but

since it was intermediary land, the same was saved from vesting and Thakuri

Mahto and his sons applied for settlement of land which was settled by

T.Bhagat and thereafter Register II was opened in their names and they got the

rent receipt but they found that double demand was running so on their

instance Misc. Case No.128/1984-85 was filed which gave rise to the filing of

the suit.

                              -9-              Second Appeal No.164 of 2024
                                                                         2025:JHHC:11694

10. In this background, considering the deciding of the civil proceedings

and it is proved by way of preponderance of probabilities. The learned court

has found that the appellant/defendants have not been able to prove their case

and the plaintiffs/respondents had successfully proved that the suit land was

settled by way of Parwana (Exhibit-3 series) on the basis of reclamation and

their possession and thereafter they paid rent which show that they have valid

right, title and interest over the suit property. In view of that, the learned first

appellate court has been pleased to dismissed the appeal by the judgment

dated 24.08.2024 and there are concurrent findings of two learned courts and

no perversity has been shown by the argument made by the learned counsel

for the appellants so far as the facts are concerned. The law points tried to be

raised in the instant second appeal has already been discussed by the learned

trial court and the Court finds that there is no perversity so far as that is

concerned. As such, no substantial question is made out to admit the instant

second appeal.

11. Hence, the instant Second Appeal being S.A. No.164 of 2024 is

dismissed.

12. Pending petition, if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.

                                        (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
SI/,
A.F.R.




                                -10-               Second Appeal No.164 of 2024