Raghubans Narayan Singh And Others vs Kedar Ram And Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 7405 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Raghubans Narayan Singh And Others vs Kedar Ram And Others on 2 December, 2025

Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                                    S.A. No. 58 of 1991 (R)

                Raghubans Narayan Singh and others ...     ...         Appellants
                                      Versus
                Kedar Ram and Others         ...           ...         Respondents
                                      With
                                 S.A. No. 69 of 1991 (R)

                Kedar Ram and Others                    ...     ...    Appellants
                                        Versus
                Parmila Devi and Others      ...                ...    Respondents

                               ---

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

[In S.A. No. 58 of 1991]

For the Appellants : Mr. Tirtha Nandan Jha, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Kundan Kumar Ambastha, Advocate : Mr. Md. Abdul Wahab, Advocate [In S.A. No. 69 of 1991] For the Appellants : Mr. Kundan Kumar Ambastha, Advocate : Mr. Md. Abdul Wahab, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Tirtha Nandan Jha, Advocate

---

49/02.12.2025 Heard the learned counsels for the parties.

2. S.A. No. 58 of 1991(R) and S.A. No. 69 of 1991(R) have been tagged as both the cases arise out of the same proceeding.

3. S.A. No. 58 of 1991(R) has been filed by the defendant nos. 1 to 3 who are being represented before this Court through the legal heirs.

4. The substantial question of law was framed vide order dated 23.08.1991 which relates to Plot No. 210 of Khata No. 88 and Plot No. 610, 667 and 254 of Khata No. 89. The substantial question of law reads as follows:

"Whether the learned Court of appeal below should have passed the impugned judgment with regard to Plot no. 210 of Khata No. 88 and Plot Nos. 601, 667 and 254 of Khata no. 89 without considering the oral and documentary evidences on record?"

5. So far as S.A. No. 69 of 1991(R) is concerned, the same has been filed by the plaintiffs and the legal heirs of the plaintiffs are before this Court. On 13.08.2025, a substantial question of law has been framed. The substantial question of law in S.A. No. 69 of 1991(R) relates to Plot No. 144 of Khata No. 116, Plot No. 151 of Khata No. 120, Plot No. 623 and 749 of Khata No. 121 and Plot No. 251 of Khata No. 122. The substantial question of law is quoted as under:

"Whether the judgment of the learned court below allowing appeal with respect to plot Nos. 144 of Khata No. 116, Plot No. 151 of Khata No. 120, Plot No. 623 and 749 of Khata No. 121 and Plot No. 251 of Khata No.122 of Village Bhabhandi is based on no evidence and is perverse?"

6. The suit was filed for the following reliefs:

"(A) That it be adjudicated and declared that the lands in suit, fully described in Schedule at the foot of this plaint, situated in village Babhandih, P.S. Chainpur, District Palamau, Palamau, are the lands owned and possessed by the plaintiffs and their title and possession has not been affected by any order passed by the Revenue Courts.

(B) That the possession of the plaintiffs over the lands in suit be confirmed.

(C) That the plaintiffs be awarded full costs of the suit. (D) That the plaintiffs be awarded any other relief or reliefs to which they may further be deemed entitled."

7. The schedule of the property which is also the suit property is also quoted as under:

Schedule Particulars of the lands in suit, situate in village Babhandih, P.S. Chainpur, District Palamau.

      Khata       Plot No. Area in acres         Kind.
      no.
      88          210        0.07                Dhan 3
      89          667        4.60                Tanr 3 Western side
      89          601        0.55                Tanr 2
      89          254        0.06                Dhan 3 House
      116         144        0.20                Dhan 2



        120        151         0.21                Dhan 2
       121        623         0.09                Tanr 2
       121        749         0.31                Tanr 2
       122        251         0.09                Dhan 3
                              Total 6.18 acres.


8.      Case of the plaintiffs

a. As per the plaint, Mosomat Janakraj Kuar - the proforma defendant no. 4 was the ex-intermediary of village Babhandih, P.S. Chainpur, District Palamau, who, in Partition Suit No. 24 of 1930 amongst the co-sharers of the landlord was allotted a separate Takhta bearing no. 4. Besides other lands, the schedule property of the plaint was allocated to her. She was defendant no. 1 in Partition Suit No. 24 of 1930.

b. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the defendant no. 4 was allotted, inter alia, plot nos. 210, 667, 601 and 254 and Raiyati Khata No. 116, 120, 121 and 122. It was their further case that the raiyats of the Raiyati khata had abandoned their holding and therefore, plot No. 144 of Khata No. 116, Plot No. 151 of Khata No. 120, Plot No. 623 and 749 of Khata No. 121 and Plot No. 251 of Khata No.122 came in exclusive possession of the proforma defendant no. 4. She had filed her return under section 3-B of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the BLR Act) and the suit land was her Bakast land and in her Khas possession. Proforma defendant no. 4 had also filed form -K for assessment of rent under BLR Act. It has been stated in the plaint that application of proforma defendant no. 4 in Form-K must have been considered for initiation of an assessment of rent case. The proforma defendant no.4 had also constructed a house in a portion of plot no. 254 which was also sold to the plaintiffs.

c. However, in the meantime, proforma defendant no. 4, through registered sale-deed dated 15.09.1962 sold plot no. 210, 667,

601, 254, 144, 151, 623, 749 and 251 to the plaintiffs and put the plaintiffs in possession.

d. It was further case of the plaintiffs that immediately after purchase, the plaintiffs filed an application for assessment of rent in their favour as successor-in-interest of proforma defendant no. 4 which was registered as Case No. 275 of 1962- 63, but the case remained pending and the plaintiffs did not receive any notice or intimation. The plaintiffs were of the view that assessment of rent in course of time must have been made in their favour. However, they came to know in the year 1970 that assessment of rent was not made as the file was missing. Consequently, the plaintiffs filed a petition for expeditious assessment of rent and as per the plaintiffs, the new application should have formed a part of the earlier Case No. 275 of 1962- 63, but it was registered as a mutation case no. 345 of 1970-71. It was also reported to the plaintiffs by the Revenue Officials that the principal defendants somehow got the rent of the land in the suit assessed in their name without any basis, although the principal defendants had no right, title or possession with respect to the suit land.

e. In such circumstances, it has been alleged that under misconception of law the Circle Officer, instead of assessing the rent in favour of the plaintiffs, rejected the petition filed by the plaintiffs on the pretext that the rent of the land with respect to the suit property was already assessed in A.R. Case No. 5 and 6 of 1961-62 in the name of the principal defendants. f. The case of the plaintiffs is that no return under section 3-B of BLR Act or application in Form-K under BLR Act was filed by the principal defendants, and as such, there could have been no occasion to assess the rent in favour of the principal defendants and the principal defendants had no basis to claim right and title over the suit land.

g. It was alleged that the assessment of rent in favour of the principal defendants was without any basis and was against the

provision of law and was, therefore, void ab -initio. It was asserted by the plaintiffs that such void order need not be set- aside and therefore, the plaintiffs did not file any appeal against the assessment of rent in favour of the defendants said to have been made in A.R. Case No. 5 and 6 of 1961-62.

h. However, the plaintiffs preferred appeal against the order of the Circle Officer refusing to assess rent in favour of the plaintiffs which was numbered as Case No. 345 of 1970-71 before the learned Additional Collector, Palamu but the appeal was also dismissed on 17.09.1975.

i. The plaintiffs asserted that the assessment of rent in the name of principal defendants and the order of Revenue authorities even in Revenue Appeal passed by the Additional Collector, Palamu has not affected the right, title and possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land, but in order to get the matter settled, the plaintiffs found it necessary to file the suit.

9. The contesting defendant nos. 1 to 3 and the proforma defendant no. 4 filed their respective written statements.

10. Case of contesting defendants.

i. The contesting defendants filed written statement and inter-alia stated that proforma defendant No.4 was never in possession over the suit land or any land in the concerned village Babhandih. She was a widow prior to the year 1922 and her son had died at an early age due to which she left the village and settled down in the village Dabra and was never allowed to return back to the village Babhandih.

ii. It was asserted that Babu Ram Naresh Singh and Babu Jaymangal Prasad Singh were in possession right from the year 1930 and on death of Babu Jaymangal Prasad Singh, his sons defendant Nos.1 and 2 and their mother came in possession along with Babu Ram Naresh Singh over the entire suit property and they remained in possession to the knowledge of the plaintiffs and also to the knowledge of proforma defendant

No.4. It was asserted that neither the plaintiff nor the proforma defendant No.4 had any kind of concern in the suit property. iii. It was further case of the contesting defendants that the return and Form-K alleged to have been filed by the proforma defendant No.4, if filed and if revenue authority would have found them in possession, they must have been assessed for rent in terms of Sections 5, 6 and 7 of the B.L.R. Act. However, since the proforma defendant no.4 had no possession over the suit property even on the date of vesting, that is, 26.01.1955, therefore, rent was not assessed in her name. Consequently, proforma defendant no. 4 had no right to execute any sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs.

iv. It was also asserted that the suit lands were in possession of these contesting defendants and in possession of Most. Uttimraj Kuer and widow of Late Jaymangal Singh but she was not made party in the case due to which the case suffered from non- joinder of necessary party.

v. It was their case that since the defendants were found in peaceful possession of the suit property, the rent was assessed in their favour vide Case No.V of 1961-62 and also in Case No.VI of 1961-62. It was also was asserted that in Case No.1168 of 1955-56 and in case No.1169 of 1955-56, the order was passed in favour of the defendants by the Collector under the B.L.R. Act and the State Government also realized the rent and granted rent receipt to the principal defendants to the knowledge of the plaintiffs and also proforma defendant. vi. It was asserted that though the plaintiffs claimed to have purchased the property in the year 1962 but before that year the rent was already fixed in the name of the contesting defendants but no appeal under Section 8 of the B.L.R. Act was filed either by the proforma defendant no. 4 or by the plaintiffs. vii. With this background, it was alleged that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief and their claim was hopelessly barred by virtue of Section 35 of the B.L.R. Act.

viii. It was their further case that the plaintiffs had applied for mutation in their name in the year 1962-63 and not for assessment of rent and their case was registered as Mutation Case No.275 of 1962-63 and the defendants were found in possession. It has also been asserted that the enquiry committee also found the defendants in possession even during Bujharat operations and the Circle Officer rejected the prayer of the plaintiffs for mutation on 28.08.1963 which became final. ix. It was also alleged in the written statement that the plaintiffs could have brought the Karamchari in collusion, who submitted the report in Case No.345 of 1770-71 for fixation of rent, but upon objection made by the principal defendants, the prayer for mutation was rejected vide order dated 20.09.1971 by the Circle Officer, against which, the plaintiffs had filed the appeal before the Additional Collector, Palamau which was dismissed on 17.09.1975 in Appeal Case No. XV/74 of 1971-72. x. The statement with respect to the house standing on plot No.254, it was asserted that the same was constructed by the principal defendants. It was asserted in paragraph No.31 that proforma defendant no. 4 was ousted from the village in the year 1930 and she had not returned in the village, therefore, the question of her possession over the suit land does not arise.

11. Case of proforma defendant no. 4.

A. The defendant No.4 had supported the case of the plaintiff by asserting that she was the ex-intermediary of the village and got the suit land in her exclusive share and possession on the basis of Partition Suit No. 24 of 1930. She was the co-sharer of landlord. The defendant was allotted the land vide Takhta No.4. She asserted that on the eve of vesting, the defendant No.4 had filed return under Section 3B of B.L.R. Act and mentioned all the plots of the suit in the return and the suit land was shown as her bakast land in khas possession. She had also filed Form-K for assessment of rent and she was peacefully cultivating the land prior to transfer made in favour of the plaintiffs. She

asserted that she transferred the suit land in favour of the plaintiff by way of registered deed of sale dated 15.09.1962 for validl consideration and the plaintiffs were in possession and she had also constructed one house in Plot No.254, which was also ultimately transferred in favour of the plaintiffs in which the plaintiffs are residing.

B. The statement of the contesting defendant Nos.1 to 3 that the proforma defendant No.4 was ousted from the village since 1930 and that she had not returned to the village was emphatically denied. It was further asserted that she always remained in the village Babhandi and got the cultivation without any interference from the defendant Nos.1 to 3 and predecessor in interest.

C. It was also asserted that the father of plaintiff No.2 and father- in-law of the plaintiff No.1, namely, Sukhdeo Ram got the bogus sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiffs. The defendant had transferred the lands in the suit to the plaintiff with free consent and after receiving the consideration amount of the sale deed. It was denied that the defendant No.4 had settled down in the village Dabra. It was also asserted that Babu Ram Naresh Singh and Babu Jaymangal Prasad Singh had no concern with the land of the proforma defendant no. 4. It was asserted that then the defendant No.4 was a widow having religious temperament by nature but on that basis, it cannot be said that she could not transfer the property. Issues

1. Is the suit framed as maintainable?

2. Have the plaintiffs any cause of action to sue?

3. Is the suit barred by limitation, waiver, estoppel, acquiescence and under section 34 of the Specific Relief Act?

4. Is the suit land raiyati land of the plaintiff?

5. Have the defendants perfected their right, title, interest and possession over the suit land by adverse possession?

6. Is the Court fee paid sufficient?

7. To what relief or reliefs, if any to which the plaintiffs are entitled?

12. Altogether seven issues were framed by the learned Trial Court. and according to the appellant, the issue No.4 is relevant for the purposes of determining the substantial questions of law involved in these cases. The issue No. 4 was-

Is the suit land, raiyati land of the plaintiffs?

13. The arguments have remained inconclusive.

14. Post this case for further hearing tomorrow i.e. 03/12/2025 at 10:30 A.M.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Pankaj/Madhav/Binit