[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Defendants/Petitioners vs Bandana Devi on 18 December, 2025
( 2025:JHHC:38109 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Civil Revision No. 34 of 2019
---------
1(a). Sabita Devi, wife of Late Ramchandra Mirdha, aged about 39 years,
resident of House No.1, Ward No.2, Near Durga Mandir, Circular Road,
Barmasia, P.O. & P.S.-Deoghar, District-Deoghar
1(b) Bajrangi Turi @ Bajrangi Kumar, Son of Late Ranchandra Mirdha,
aged about 26 years Resident of House No.1, Ward No.2, Near Durga
Mandir, Circular Road, Barmasia, P.O. & P.S.-Deoghar, District-Deoghar
1(c). Karan Turi, Son of Late Ramchandra Mirdha, aged about 21 years,
Resident of House No.1, Ward No.2, Near Durga Mandir, Circular Road,
Barmasia, P.O. & P.S.-Deoghar, District-Deoghar
1(d) Parwati Kumari, Daughter of Late Ramchandra Mirdha, aged about 18
years, Resident of House No.1, Ward No.2, Near Durga Mandir, Circular
Road, Barmasia, P.O. & P.S.-Deoghar, District-Deoghar
1(e) Sheetal Turi @ Sheetal Kumari, daughter of Late Ramchandra Mirdha,
aged about 16 years, Resident of House No.1, Ward No.2, Near Durga
Mandir, Circular Road, Barmasia, P.O. & P.S.-Deoghar, District-Deoghar
1(f) Ajay Kumar, Son of Ramchandra Mirdha, aged about 13 years, Resident
of House No.1, Ward No.2, Near Durga Mandir, Circular Road, Barmasia,
P.O. & P.S.-Deoghar, District-Deoghar
1(g) Arjun Kumar, son of late Ramchandra Mirdha, aged about 13 years,
Resident of House No.1, Ward No.2, Near Durga Mandir, Circular Road,
Barmasia, P.O. & P.S.-Deoghar, District-Deoghar
petitioner Nos.(e), (f) and (g) are represented through their
natural guardian (mother) Sabita Devi, wife of late Ramchandra Mirdha,
aged about 39 years, Resident of House No.1, Ward No.2, Near Durga
Mandir, Circular Road, Barmasia, P.O. & P.S.-Deoghar, District-Deoghar
...... Defendants/Petitioners
Versus
Bandana Devi, W/o Sri Lalan Prasad Verma, R/o-Mohalla Barmasiya, P.O.
& P.S.-Deoghar, Subdivision & District-Deoghar
.... Opp. Party/plaintiff
---------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Prashant Pallav, Advocate
Ms. Smita Sinha, Advocate,
For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Rajiv Sinha, Sr. Advocate
Ms. Shreesha Sinha, Advocate
Mr. B.K. Prasad, Advocate
Mr. Niraj Kumar, Advocate
----------
PRESENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
ORDER
----------
( 2025:JHHC:38109 )
Order No.22/ Dated: 18.12.2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for
the opposite party.
2. The instant civil revision is directed against the judgment and
decree dated 25.05.2019 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division-I),
Deoghar in Title Suit No.163 of 2015, whereby and whereunder
learned trial court has decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff under
section 6 of Specific Relief Act granting relief of the recovery of
the possession over the suit property.
3. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that the land
appertaining to Jamabandi No.48/20, Plot No.335 was originally
recorded in the name of Sukar Dom during last Survey Settlement
known of Gantzer's Settlement of the year 1932 as Basouri land.
The recorded tenant died leaving behind a son Marihan Mirdha,
who sold a portion of the said land comprising area 2 decimals to
one Md. Hussain through registered sale deed dated 30.11.1985.
The purchaser, Md. Hussain got mutated his name in the Circle
Officer, Deoghar vide Mutation Case No.351/1985-86 and his
name was entered into Register-II. The said Md. Hussain sold 380
sq. ft. of his said land to the plaintiff Smt. Bandana Devi through
registered sale deed dated 19.04.2001. The said land is 10ft. x 38ft.
in area. It is further alleged that the said Md. Hussain sold the rest
of the land to another person Mr. Arvind. After purchasing 380 sq.
( 2025:JHHC:38109 )
ft. land, the plaintiff constructed asbestos roof room/hall over her
purchased land within area measuring 10ft. x 20ft. from the east to
west and 18 ft. of land was left opened towards west side for other
use. It is further alleged that in absence of the plaintiff, the
defendant has encroached upon the said vacant portion of the land
of the plaintiff towards the western side measuring 10 ft. x 18 ft.
by putting asbestos sheet over the boundary wall and making as a
room and taken possession over the land in the month of Sarvan,
2015 i.e. in or about 10.08.2015 to 20.08.2015. When the plaintiff
along with her husband returned on 25.08.2015 and went to see her
land and room, they found that the defendant had made asbestos
room over his vacant portion of land towards western side, which
is fully described in the suit scheduled and sketch map attached
with the plaint. The plaintiff requested the defendant to vacate the
suit scheduled property but he flatly denied and threatened for dire
consequences. The defendant/ original petitioner, Ramchandra
Mridha had filed a Title Suit No.105 of 2000 in the court of
learned Sub Judge for declaring the same in favour of the vendor
of the plaintiff namely, Md. Husain dated 30.11.1985 as void and
the said sale deed was held to be valid up to 1 ½ decimal land out
of total 2 decimals vide judgment dated 17.05.2006. The
defendant/ original petitioner also preferred an appeal i.e. Title
Appeal No.23 of 2006 and cross appeal was filed by the plaintiff
( 2025:JHHC:38109 )
vide Title Appeal No.24 of 2006 in the court of District Judge,
Deoghar. Both the appeals were heard and disposed of through
common judgment and Title Appeal No.23 of 2015 filed by
Ramchandra Mirdha was dismissed holding that Ramchandra
Mirdha was not the adopted son of Marihan Mirdha and Title
Appeal No.24 of 2006 filed by the plaintiff was allowed and the
sale deed of 2 decimals of land in favour of Md. Hussain was
declared legal. The suit land was all along in peaceful possession
of the plaintiff since after her purchase. Therefore, she is entitled
for recovery of possession under section 6 of the Specific Relief
Act.
4. On the other hand, the case of the defendant/ original petitioner is
that the he is the adopted son of the Marihan Mirdha, who was
rightful owner of the suit property, hence, he inherited the same.
The said Marihan Mirdha died much before 30.11.1985 therefore
execution of sale deed on that date does not arise. Therefore,
subsequent sale deed executed by the alleged purchaser, Md.
Hussain from Marihan Mirdha to the plaintiff of this case namely
Smt. Bandana Devi is also of no legal consequence and the
plaintiff never came into the possession of the suit land as such no
question of encroachment of the suit property arise. The suit land is
still in possession of the defendant as inherited from the rightful
owner Marihan Mirdha as his adopted son. He had also constructed
( 2025:JHHC:38109 )
a residential house over it and besides there is a Mata Mansa
temple where annual idol of goddess Mata Mansa is put on
worship by the entire people of Mauza Barmasia. The plaintiff has
got a sale deed executed during pendency of Title Suit No.105 of
2000 but was never in possession of the same but in course of time,
the plaintiff using the money and muscle power and influencing
local police personnels forcibly made entry over a small piece
room constructed by the defendant and wrongful wants to have
made construction over the same. It is the plaintiff, who has
illegally and forcibly entered into the possession over the some
constructed portion of the premises of the defendant. Therefore,
there is no cause of action in favour of the plaintiff. The alleged
purchase of the suit property is also hit by doctrine of lis pendens.
It is also pleaded that against the judgment of the appellant court
passed in Title Appeal No.23 of 2006 filed by the defendant(s),
Second Appeal No. 197 of 2010 has been preferred before the
Hon'ble High Court, which is still pending for adjudication.
Therefore, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed.
5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties following issues were
settled by the trial court for adjudication:-
(i) Whether the suit filed and framed by the
plaintiff is maintainable on facts or in law?
(ii) Whether plaintiff has valid cause of action for
filing the present suit?
( 2025:JHHC:38109 )
(iii) Whether plaintiff's suit is barred by law of
limitation, res-judicata, waiver, acquiescence and
estoppel or any other law?
(iv) Whether plaintiff has been possessed by the
defendants over the suit property within six
months of the filing of the present suit?
(v) Whether the plaintiff is entitle for restoration
his possession over the suit property over which
plaintiff has been dispossessed?
(vi) Whether plaintiff is entitle for any other relief
or reliefs?
6. In order to substantiate its case, the plaintiff has examined herself
as a witness, P.W.1 along with another witness P.W.2, Lalan Pd.
Verma and also placed reliance upon following documentary
evidences:-
(i) Ext.1 to 1/a- Two sale deeds
(ii) Ext.2 is Ext L in T.S. 105/2000
(iii) Ext.3 is electric Bill
(iv)Ext.4 is order dated 15.10.2001 (order of SDM,
Deoghar passed in Cr. Misc. Case No.297 of 2001)
(v) Ext.5 to 5/a are two judgments.(Judgement of
Title Suit No.105 of 2006 and Title Appeal Nos.23
of 2006 and 24 of 2006)
7. On the other hand, the defendant has examined 6 witnesses
including himself but no documentary evidence has been filed in
support of his claim.
8. Learned trial court has taken together for adjudication the core
issue Nos.4 and 5 as primary issues and held that on the basis of
( 2025:JHHC:38109 )
registered sale deed, the plaintiff has acquired right, title, interest
and possession over her entire purchased property, total area 380
sq. ft. She has taken electric connection and also paying municipal
tax. The defendant has also lost his suit up to First Appellate Court
for cancellation of sale deed executed in favour of the vendor of
the plaintiff dated 30.11.1985. Although, Second Appeal No. 197
of 2010 is still pending but the plaintiff has been able to prove the
factum of possession within six months prior to the filing of the
suit, which was wrongfully encroached by the defendant during her
absence. Accordingly, the aforesaid issues were decided in favour
of the plaintiff along with other ancillaries issues, hence, the suit of
the plaint was decreed against which this civil revision has been
preferred by the defendant/original petitioner. It is pertinent to
mention here that original petitioner, Ramchandra Mirdha @
Ramchandra Turi died during pendency of this petitioner and his
legal heirs/representatives have been substituted vide order dated
28.04.2025.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant assailing the impugned judgment
submits that the plaintiff was never in possession over the suit land
and entire story about the claim of possession of the plaintiff is
concocted, false and fabricated and motivated with misuse of
provision of section 6 of Specific Relief Act. The suit was barred
by Doctrine of "sub-judice" under section 10 of C.P.C. It is further
( 2025:JHHC:38109 )
submitted that the plaintiff's claim of possession over the suit
property is wholly unsubstantiated and the suit filed by the
defendant i.e. Title Suit No. 105 of 2000 for declaring the sale
deed executed by Marihan Mirdha in favour of Md. Hussain dated
30.11.1985 itself is sub judice in Second Appeal No. 197 of 2010
filed by the petitioners. It is further submitted that in the suit under
section 6 of Specific Relief Act, the question of title or better right
of possession does not arise for adjudication rather only issue
required to be decided as to whether the plaintiff was in possession
at any time six months prior to date of filing of the suit. In this
connection, the plaintiff herself in her pleadings and evidence
admits that she was residing elsewhere and the constructed room
on the suit land remained locked and unused. There is no credible
material on record to demonstrate that she ever exercised dominion
over the specific 10ft x 18ft of land, which she alleged that the
same was encroached by the defendant in Shravan month, 2015. It
is further submitted that the petitioners have been in possession of
the suit premises and consistently claim such possession
throughout a long chain of litigation. In Title Suit No.105 of 2000,
which was filed by the original petitioner against the plaintiff's
vendor, Md. Hussain. The present plaintiff/opposite party was
made a party as defendant second party in that suit also. Learned
trial court framed an issue regarding possession of the suit land.
( 2025:JHHC:38109 )
However, no finding was given on that issue despite it being a
central point of the case. This failure left the question of actual
possession unresolved. Unfortunately, in the Civil Appeal Nos.23
& 24 of 2006, which were jointly adjudicated by the First
Appellate Court, there was observation that the defendant
witnesses Nos.6 and 9 have disclosed the possession of the present
petitioners over the suit land from several years but no final verdict
regarding possession was given by the learned appellate court also.
It is further submitted that learned trial court has further failed to
appreciate that the documentary evidence adduced by the
plaintiff/opposite party vis electric bill (Ext.3), Mutation Order
(Ext.2) and sale deeds (Ext.1 and 1/a) do not establish physical
possession. The oral evidence of defendant has been ignored by the
learned Trial Court without specifying any valid reasons.
Therefore, the impugned judgment suffers from gross jurisdictional
error, illegal and cause for interference by this Court by setting
aside the same. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed
reliance upon the reported judgment in Mohd. Mehtab Khan and
Others Vs. Khushnuma Ibrahim Khan and Others (2013) 9 SCC
221.
10.Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party/plaintiff has
controverted the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the
petitioners and submitted that there is no legal substance in the
( 2025:JHHC:38109 )
aforesaid points of argument. It is admitted position by the original
petitioner himself in his written statement that the plaintiff was in
possession of the suit property. Although, it is alleged that
possession was obtained forcefully with the assistance of local
police personnels and anti-social elements. If above facts are
admitted to be true for the sake of argument, it is very strange that
the original petitioner, who has already instituted a Title Suit No.
105 of 2000 in which, the present plaintiff was also party, the
factum of illegal dispossession of the petitioners and prayer for
recovery of possession was not incorporated in that suit. Moreover,
the original petitioner/defendant did not take recourse even under
section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. Therefore, bald plea of the
petitioners that he was wrongfully dispossessed from the suit
property, cannot be accepted. It is further submitted that the
documentary evidence led by the plaintiff/opposite party like
mutation of her name in the municipal corporation, electric bill and
taxes are sufficient documents to prove her possession over the suit
property and has rightly been relied by the learned Trial Court. It is
further submitted that the original petitioner/defendant himself
admits that he has lost suit up to the First Appellate Court and
question of possession was never decided finally between the
parties. Therefore, this suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief
Act for recovery of possession was never in question in the title
( 2025:JHHC:38109 )
suit either filed by the plaintiff or by the defendant of this case. In
view of above, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned
judgment and decree calling for any interference. This appeal has
no merits and fit to be dismissed.
11.I have gone through the impugned order in the light of contentions
raised on behalf of both parties.
12.It appears that suit property is purchased by the plaintiff/opposite
party through registered sale deed executed by Md. Hussain dated
19.04.2001. The plaintiff has also got mutation and paying the
revenue/taxes and electric bills, therefore, enjoying ownership and
possession over the suit property since the date of purchase. The
predecessor in title of the plaintiff has also obtained the suit
property through registered sale deed dated 30.11.1985 executed
by Marihan Mirdha and vide mutation case No.351/1985-86 got
mutated his name in circle office and acquired title and possession.
The defendant/petitioner started disputing the title and possession
of plaintiff by instituting a suit vide Title Suit No.105 of 2000
whereby the relief for cancellation of sale-deed dated 30.11.1985
executed by Marihan Mirdha in favour of Md. Hussain (vendor of
plaintiff) was sought for but the suit was dismissed vide judgment
dated 17.05.2006. Title appeal No.23 of 2006 filed by the original
petitioner, Ramchandra Mirdha was also dismissed. Although,
second appeal filed by the petitioners is still pending for
( 2025:JHHC:38109 )
adjudication but the suit property, which was in possession of
plaintiff/opposite party, was not disputed. The opposite party was
illegally dispossessed by petitioner, hence a suit under section 6 of
Specific Relief Act was instituted and decreed.
13.In the aforementioned facts and circumstances, I don't find any
error of law in the impugned judgment calling for any interference,
hence, this revision stands dismissed.
14.Interim order, if any passed in this case, stands vacated.
15. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of accordingly.
16.Let a copy of this order be sent back to the trial court for
information and needful.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated: 18/ 12 /2025
Pappu/- N.A.F.R.
