Jharkhand High Court
Unknown vs (B) Mahangu Ram S/O Late Bilash Paswan on 7 August, 2025
2025:JHHC:22495
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Second Appeal No. 17 of 1997(R)
......
[Against the Judgment and decree dated 11.12.1996 (decree signed on
03.01.1997) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Palamau,
Daltonganj in Title Appeal No.13 of 1990]
......
1(b)(i) Anita Devi Widow of Late Ishwari Prasad
1(b)(ii) Manish Kumar S/o Late Ishwari Prasad
1(b)(iii) Piyush Kumar S/o Late Ishwari Prasad
All residents of Village, P.O. & P.S.-Kandi, District Garhwa
1(c) Binay Prasad S/o Late Narain Sahu R/o Village - Kandi,
P.O.-Kandi, P.S. Manjhiaon District - Palamau
1(d)(i) Shiv Prasad Sahu S/o Late Balkeshwar Sahu, husband of
Kamla Devi
1(d)(ii) Shyam Kumar S/o Shiv Prasad Sahu
1(d)(iii) Priyanka Kumari D/o Shiv Prasad Sahu
1(d)(i) to 1(d)(iii) are R/o Village & P.O. - Matlaung, P.S.-
Manika, District Latehar.
1(e) Anita Devi D/o Late Narain Sahu, W/o Gupteshwar
Prasad R/o Village - Charatia, P.S.-Charatia, P.O.-Ghuratia,
District-Palamau
... Plaintiffs/Appellants
Versus
1(b) Mahangu Ram S/o Late Bilash Paswan
1(c)(i) Radhika Devi Widow of Late Surajdeo Ram
1(c)(ii) Dharmendra Ram S/o Late Surajdeo Ram
1(c)(iii) Gudan Ram S/o Late Surajdeo Ram
1(c)(iv) Ajay Ram S/o Late Surajdeo Ram
1(c)(v) Suraj Ram S/o Late Surajdeo Ram
S.No.1(c)(i) to 1(c)(v) are resident of Village & P.O. Kandi, P.S.
Manjhiaon, District Palamau now Garhwa
2(a) Most. Anarkali W/o Late Kailash Paswan
2(b) Asharfi Ram S/o Late Kailash Paswan
2(c) Suresh Ram S/o Late Kailash Paswan
2(d)(i) Rita Devi widow of Late Rameshwar Ram
2(d)(ii) Soni Kumari (Minor) D/o Late Rameshwar Ram, represented
through her mother and natural guardian Most. Rita Devi
2(d)(i) and 2(d)(ii) are resident of Village- Kandi, P.O.-
Manjhiaon, District - Palamau now Garhwa
2(e) Phulmatiya Devi W/o Anil Ram, D/o Late Kailash Paswan
R/o Village, P.O. & P.S. Kandi, Distt. Garhwa
3(a) Surji Devi Widow of Late Ramdas Paswan
3(b) Umesh Paswan S/o Late Ramdas Paswan
S.A. No.17 of 1997(R) Page | 1
2025:JHHC:22495
3(a) and 3(b) are resident of Village & P.O. Kandi, P.S.
Manjhion, District Garhwa
3(c) Etwaria Devi W/o Sudarshan Ram D/o Late Ramdas Paswan
3(d) Sunaina Devi W/o Prabhu Ram, D/o Late Ramdas Paswan
3(c) and 3(d) are resident of Village Amhi, P.O. & P.S. Japla
Distt. Palamau
3(e) Muraina Devi W/o Bujhwan Ram, D/o Late Ramdas Paswan
resident of Village Loka, P.O. Badiha, P.S. Manjhion, Distt.
Garhwa
3(f) Sumatia Devi W/o Bijay Paswan D/o Late Ramdas Paswan,
R/o Village Gudur P.O. Hariharpur P.S. Bhawnathpur, Distt.
Garhwa
3(g) Rita Devi D/o Late Ramdas Paswan R/o Village Lamari P.O.
& P.S. Manjhion Distt. Garhwa
... Defendants/Respondents
......
For the Appellants : Mr. Manjul Prasad, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Aukhouri Prakhar Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Aman Kedia, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Kundan Kumar Ambastha, Advocate
Mr. Shiv Prasad, Advocate
Mr. Arvind Prakash Malakar, Advocate
Md. Abdul Wahab, Advocate
Mr. Sushil Kumar Verma, Advocate
......
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
......
JUDGMENT
C.A.V. on 15.07.2025 Pronounced on 07.08.2025
1. I have already heard the arguments advanced by
Mr. Manjul Prasad, learned senior counsel for the appellants
as well as Mr. Kundan Kumar Ambastha, learned counsel
appearing for the respondents.
S.A. No.17 of 1997(R) Page | 2
2025:JHHC:22495
2. Instant second appeal has been preferred against the
judgment and decree dated 11.12.1996 (decree signed on
03.01.1997) passed by learned 4th Additional District Judge,
Palamau at Daltonganj in Title Appeal No.13 of 1990
confirming the judgment and decree dated 30.03.1990 (decree
signed on 16.04.1990) passed by learned Munsiff, Civil Judge,
Junior Division, Garhwa in Title Suit No.32 of 1987.
3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that the
plaintiff/appellants instituted the suit stating inter alia that as
per Sonpura Raj comprising several villages including Village
Kandi, was under the management of Ward and Encumbered
Estate, Palamau and it was released when the last proprietor
Raja Narendra Nath Sahi attained majority. It is further
alleged that in the year 2023, there was abnormal flood in
river Sone and entire Village Sonpura merged in the river
including the houses and agricultural lands of the inhabitants
of the said village and they became homeless and landless
having no place to take shelter. It is further alleged that one
Kail Dusadh with permission of Manager, Ward and
Encumbered Estate cleared shrubs and jungle (forest) of
Village Kandi and constructed a house and made 1.91 acres
S.A. No.17 of 1997(R) Page | 3
2025:JHHC:22495
land cultivable and settled in the Village Kandi. The said area
comprising survey Plot Nos.1 and 7, was subsequently in the
year 1933-34 recognized the tenancy of Kail Dusadh by
Manager of Estate issuing customary Parwana and pucca rent
receipt. Thereafter, the said Estate was succeeded by the Raja
Nagendra Nath Sahi, who also received/realized rent and
issued rent receipts to Kail Dusadh. It is further alleged that
Kail Dusadh died in the year 1951 leaving behind his sole son
Karmu Dusadh who inherited the entire landed property of
his father. It is further stated that plaintiff's elder brother was
serving as a School Teacher of High School, Kandi ad was
residing in a rented house in the said village. The plaintiff
also used to visit his brother at Village Kandi. It is further
alleged that in the year 1951, plaintiff had gone to see his
ailing elder brother, meanwhile, one Karmu Dusadh @
Karmu Singh asked for loan of Rs.200/- for conducting
sharadh of his father, which was paid by the plaintiff through
his brother. In lieu of the said loan amount Karmu Dusadh
agreed to sell the land of Schedule 'A' to the plaintiff for
consideration of Rs.500/- out of which Rs.200/- was paid in
advance by the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff came into
S.A. No.17 of 1997(R) Page | 4
2025:JHHC:22495
possession of the suit Schedule 'A' land and house. It is
further alleged that the plaintiff continued his possession
over Schedule 'A' land till 1964. Thereafter, Karmu Dusadh
came to the plaintiff and asked him to purchase the land,
accordingly a sale deed was executed by Karmu Dusadh in
favour of plaintiff on 09.06.1964 after receiving the balance
consideration amount of Rs.300/- in the presence of Sub-
Registrar, Hussainabad. Therefore, plaintiff acquired right,
title and interest over the purchased land as well also he
reclaimed and brought under cultivation the part land lying
all around the purchased land after expanding handsome
amount. The total area of land became 2.77 acres including
the purchased land. It is further alleged that at the time of
vesting of zamindari, Sonpur Estate did not file return of his
estate for the land settled with the tenants by the Manager of
the Ward and Encumbered Estate, so it was difficult to
ascertain the lands of raiyats. It is further alleged that by
order of Circle Officer, Manjhiaon, an Amin was appointed
for measuring and demarcating the lands of raiyats of Village
Kandi. Therefore, plaintiff's Schedule 'A' land was also
measured and was substituted by the sub-plots of Schedule
S.A. No.17 of 1997(R) Page | 5
2025:JHHC:22495
'B' land. The difference of 0.86 acres of land was found as it
was reclaimed by the plaintiff. Hence, Circle Officer ordered
for opening of demand according to new plotting. It is further
alleged that after some time, son of Karmu Dusadh namely
Fagu started disturbing the peaceful possession of the
plaintiff over the suit land and a proceeding under Section
145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was initiated between
them but the possession of defendants was declared which
was also confirmed in Criminal Revision No.101 of 1985
which necessitated this suit. The plaintiff has instituted this
suit claiming for declaration of his right, title, interest and
confirmation of possession over the suit Schedule A and
Schedule B property appended to the plaint.
4. On the other hand, the case of defendants is that a
settlement of 1.91 acres of land in favour of Kail Dusadh is
admitted who died in the year 1957. It is further stated that
Karmu Dusadh never called himself as Karmu Singh nor
represented as Gahlaut Chhatri. It is also denied that the
defendants ever asked Rs.200/- to perform sharadh
ceremony of his father from the elder brother of the plaintiff
and suit land was never handed over to the plaintiff. The
S.A. No.17 of 1997(R) Page | 6
2025:JHHC:22495
execution of any sale deed in favour of plaintiff by Karmu
Dusadh is also denied. It is also pleaded that if the said
transfer through sale deed purported to have been executed
in the year 1964 may be considered to have executed, but
there is no pleading that permission to sell the property was
obtained from the Dy. Commissioner since the property
belong to a member of Schedule Caste. In this view of the
matter also, the alleged sale deed cannot be recognized under
law to confer any right, title and interest to the plaintiff. The
defendants' ancestors were settled with land and also
reclaimed surrounding areas total measuring 2.77 acres and
continuously coming into possession. Their possession was
also declared by the S.D.O. in a proceeding under Section 145
Cr.P.C. The plaintiff has filed the suit on the basis of
concocted story having no right, title, interest and possession
over the suit land. Therefore, suit is fit to be dismissed.
5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the main issues
Nos.(v) and (vi) settled by learned Trial Court are as under :-
"(v) Did the plaintiff acquired any valid right, title and
possession in respect of Schedule 'A' land by virtue
of registered sale deed dated 09.06.1964 executed by
Karmu Singh in favour of the plaintiff?
S.A. No.17 of 1997(R) Page | 7
2025:JHHC:22495
(vi) Has the plaintiff been coming in uninterrupted
possession of the suit land since 09.06.1964 and has
perfected his title over the same by the law of adverse
possession?
(vii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for the
reliefs sought for in suit?"
6. The learned Trial Court after taking into consideration
oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the parties
arrived at specific findings that the very basis of claim of the
plaintiff is registered sale deed dated 09.06.1964, cannot be
recognized under law as no prior permission for sale was
obtained from the concerned Dy. Commissioner as per
mandate of Section 46 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act
rather on the basis of evidence available on record title and
possession of the defendants over the suit land is established.
The plaintiff has miserably failed to prove his title and
possession over the suit land, hence, not entitled for any relief
as claimed for, accordingly, dismissed the suit. The first
Appellate Court also concurred with the findings recorded by
the learned Trial Court and dismissed the appeal.
7. This second appeal has been preferred and admitted
vide order dated 10.09.1997 on following substantial
questions of law :-
S.A. No.17 of 1997(R) Page | 8
2025:JHHC:22495
(i) Whether the deed of the plaintiff dated 09.06.1964
being prior to 1979 may be held to be valid one
under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India
and non-consideration of this fact by the Courts
below caused error of law?
(ii) Even if the deed is invalid or void then also when the
plaintiff could prove his possession since 1964
against the real owner then his possession can be
said to be perfected by right of adverse possession?
(iii) Leaving aside the land within the deed being void
whether the Courts below committed error of law in
not considering the plaintiff's title regarding
Schedule-'B' land outside the land contained in sale
deed dated 09.06.1964?
8. Apart from above substantial questions of law, vide
order dated 22.07.2024, additional substantial question of law
was also incorporated which is as under:-
"Whether admittedly the sale deed marked Ext.2
having been executed by the defendant in respect of
the house situated over the land and not a Raiyati
land the restrictions for transfer of the Raiyat as
provided for in Section 46 of the Chota Nagpur
Tenancy Act, 1908 would be attracted in respect of
the Ext. No.2?"
9. Learned counsel for the appellants elucidating the
substantial questions of law involved in this case vehemently
argued that the plaintiff has purchased through registered
sale deed, the household property along with lands. It is
further submitted that the restrictions on transfer imposed
S.A. No.17 of 1997(R) Page | 9
2025:JHHC:22495
under Section 46 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908
applies over transfer of agricultural land and not the
household properties. Therefore, findings recorded by both
the Courts below that is sale deed executed in favour of
plaintiff is hit by Section 46 of the C.N.T. Act, as such, void ab
initio is not tenable at all.
10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents refuting
the aforesaid argument raised on behalf of appellants has
submitted that the appellants/plaintiff at para Nos.11 and 12
of its plaint itself has admitted in specific terms about
purchase of land and in his oral evidence admitted
construction of a house made of straw (फूस). The considerable
part of the land is agricultural raiyati land. The area of
household is very small in nature which does not change the
nature of the suit property into household property.
Admittedly, the vendor of the suit property belongs to
Schedule Caste and the sale deed was executed in the year
1964 and was within the ambit of provision of Section 46 of
the C.N.T. Act, 1908 which provides restriction on transfer of
agricultural land without previous permission of the Dy.
S.A. No.17 of 1997(R) Page | 10
2025:JHHC:22495
Commissioner. It is further submitted that sub-Clause 3 of
Section 46 of the C.N.T. Act, 1908 also provides:
" 46. Restrictions on transfer of their right by Raiyat.
-
(1) ....
(2) ....
(3) No transfer in contravention of sub-section (1), shall
be registered or shall be in any way recognised as
valid by any Court, whatever in exercise, of civil,
criminal or revenue jurisdiction."
Therefore, the appellants were never found in
possession of the suit property described in A and B to the
plaint. They have also lost criminal proceeding under Section
145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure up to the Revisional
Court, as such, the learned Trial Court as well as the learned
Appellate Court has rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff
being devoid of merits.
11. I have gone through the judgment passed by learned
Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court in the light of
contentions raised on behalf of rival parties in the light of
substantial questions of law formulated in the appeal.
12. The pith and substance of this case lies in the validity of
transfer of agricultural land by a member of Schedule Caste
S.A. No.17 of 1997(R) Page | 11
2025:JHHC:22495
in contravention to the provision of Section 46 of the C.N.T.
Act which reads as under :-
" Restrictions on transfer of their right by Raiyat. -
(1) No transfer by a Raiyat of his right in his holding or any
portion thereof,-
(a) by mortgagte or lease for any period expressed or
implied which exceeds or might in any possible event
exceed five years, or
(b) by sale, gift or any other contract or agreement, shall
be valid to any extent: Provided that a Raiyat may
enter into a 'bhugut bundha' mortgage of his holding
or any portion thereof for any period not exceeding
seven years or if the mortgagee be a society registered
or deemed to be registered under the 'Bihar and
Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1935 (B&O Act VI
of 1935) for any period not exceeding fifteen years:]
Provided further that,-
(a) an occupancy-Raiyat, who is [a member of the
Scheduled Tribes] may transfer with the previous
sanction of the Deputy Commissioner his right in
his holding or a portion of his holding by sale,
exchange, gift or will to [another person, who is a
member of the Scheduled Tribes and], who is a
resident within the local limits of the area of the
police station within which the holding is situate;
(b) an occupancy-Raiyat, who is a member of the
[Scheduled Castes or Backward Classes] may
transfer with the previous sanction of the Deputy
Commissioner his right in his holding or a portion
of his holding by sale, exchange, gift, will or lease
to another person, who is a member of the
[Scheduled Castes or, as the case may be,
Backward Classes] and who is a resident within
the local limits of the district within which the
holding is situate [* * *];
S.A. No.17 of 1997(R) Page | 12
2025:JHHC:22495
(c) any occupancy-Raiyat may, transfer his right in
his holding or any portion thereof to a society or
bank registered or deemed to be registered under
the 'Bihar and Orissa Cooperative Societies Act,
1935 (Bihar and Orissa Act VI of 1935), or to the
State Bank of India or a bank specified in column 2
of the First Schedule to the Banking Companies
(Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act,
1970 (5 of 1970) or to a company or a corporation
owned by, or in which less than fifty-one per cent
of the share capital is held by the State
Government or the Central Government or partly
by the State Government, and partly by the
Central Government, and which has been set up
with a view to provide agricultural credit to
cultivators; and (d) any occupancy-Raiyat, who is
not a member of the Scheduled Tribes, Scheduled
Castes or Backward classes, may, transfer his right
in his holding or any portion thereof by sale,
exchange, gift, will, mortgage or otherwise to any
other person.]
(2) A transfer by a Raiyat of his right in his holding or any
portion thereof under subsection (1) shall be binding on
the landlords.
(3) No transfer in contravention of sub-section (1), shall be
registered or shall be in any way recognised as valid by
any Court, whatever in exercise, of civil, criminal or
revenue jurisdiction
[(3-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other
law for the time being in force, the Deputy Commissioner
shall be a necessary party in all suits of a civil nature
relating to any holding or portion thereof in which one of
the parties to the suits is a member of the Scheduled
Tribes and the other party is not a member of the
Scheduled Tribes.]
(4) At any time within three years after the expiration of the
period or which a Raiyat has under clause (a) of sub-
S.A. No.17 of 1997(R) Page | 13
2025:JHHC:22495
section (1) transferred his right in his holding or any
portion thereof, the Deputy Commissioner shall on the
application of the Raiyat put the Raiyat into possession of
such holding or portion in the prescribed manner.
[(4-A) (a) The Deputy Commissioner may, of his own
motion or on an application filed before him by an
occupancy-Raiyat, who is a member of the Scheduled
Tribes, for annulling the transfer on the ground that the
transfer was made in contravention of clause (a) of the
second proviso to sub-section (1), hold an inquiry in the
prescribed manner to determine if the transfer has been
made in contravention of clause (a) of the second proviso
to sub-section (1):
Provided that no such application be entertained by the
Deputy Commissioner unless it is filed by the occupancy-
tenant within a period of twelve years from the date of
transfer of his holding or any portion thereof:
Provided further that before passing any order under
clause (b) or clause (c) of this subsection, the Deputy
Commissioner shall give the parties concerned a
reasonable opportunity to be heard in the matter.
(b) If after holding the inquiry referred to in clause (a) of
this sub-section, the Deputy Commissioner finds that
there was no contravention of clause (a) of the second
proviso to sub-section (1) in making such transfer, he
shall reject the application and may award such costs to
the transferee to be paid by the transferor as he may, in
the circumstances of the case, deem fit.
(c) If after holding the inquiry referred to in clause (a) of
this sub-section, the Deputy Commissioner finds that
such transfer was made in contravention of clause (a) of
the second proviso to sub-section (1), he shall annul the
transfer and eject the transferee from such holding or
portion thereof, as the case may be and put the transferor
in possession thereof:
Provided that if the transferee has constructed any
building or structure, such holding or portion thereof, the
S.A. No.17 of 1997(R) Page | 14
2025:JHHC:22495
Deputy Commissioner shall, if the transferor is not
willing to pay the value of the same, order the transferee
to remove the same within a period of six months from the
date of the order, or within such extended time not
exceeding two years from the date of the order as the
Deputy Commissioner may allow failing which the
Deputy Commissioner may get such building or
structure removed:
Provided further that where the Deputy Commissioner is
satisfied that the transferee has constructed a substantial
structure or building on such holding or portion thereof
before the commencement of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy
(Amendment) Act, 1969 (President's Act 4 of 1969) he
may, notwithstanding any other provisions of this Act,
validate such a transfer made in contravention of clause
(a) of the second proviso to sub-section (1), if the
transferee either makes available to the transferor an
alternative holding or portion of a holding, as the case
may be, of the equivalent value, in the vicinity or pays
adequate compensation to be determined by the Deputy
Commissioner for rehabilitation of the transferor.
Explanation. - In this Section "substantial structure or
building" means the structure or building of the value
exceeding five thousand rupees on the date of holding
inquiry, but it does not include such structure or
building of any value the materials of which cannot be
removed without incurring substantial depreciation in its
value.]
(5) Nothing in this Section shall affect the validity of any
transfer (of otherwise invalid) of a Raiyats right in his
holding or any portion thereof made bona fide before the
first day of January 1908 in the Chota Nagpur Division
except the district of 'Manbhum', or before the first day
of Januaury 1909, in the district of 'Manbhum'.
(6) In this Section [and in Section 47],-
S.A. No.17 of 1997(R) Page | 15
2025:JHHC:22495
(a) "Scheduled Casted" means such castes, races or tribes
as are specified in Part II of the Scheduled to the
Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950;
(b) "Scheduled Tribes" means such tribes or tribal
communities or parts of or groups within such tribes
or tribal communities as are specified in Part II of the
Scheduled to the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes)
Order, 1950; and
(c) "Backward classed" means such classes of citizens as
may be declared by the State Government, by
notification in the Official Gazette, to be socially and
educationally backward.]"
13. In the instant case, it is an admitted position that the
considerable part of the suit property out of 2.77 acres is
agricultural land except small piece of land as described by
the plaintiff to be the household property. It is also admitted
by plaintiff in his oral evidence that the house is made of
straw (फूस), the area of the house is also not described in Ext.2
sale deed. It is also admitted that the land is used for
agricultural purposes. Therefore, transfer of the suit schedule
land cannot be validly effected without previous permission
from the concerned Dy. Commissioner, which was
admittedly not obtained in this case. There are concurrent
findings of facts regarding title and possession of the
defendants over the suit land rather than the plaintiff whose
S.A. No.17 of 1997(R) Page | 16
2025:JHHC:22495
claim is based on the purchase through registered sale deed
executed in violation of statutory restriction which has no
effect under law. The substantial question of law formulated
earlier is also not sustainable in view of illegal transfer of
land. Therefore, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the
impugned judgment and orders passed by the concurrent
findings of the Courts below calling for any interference in
this appeal. I do not find any merits in this appeal which
stands dismissed. Both parties are directed to bear their own
cost.
14. Pending I.As., if any, also stand dismissed.
15. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court
record be sent back to the concerned Trial Court for
information and needful.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated: 07/08/2025
Sachin / NAFR
S.A. No.17 of 1997(R) Page | 17
