Jharkhand High Court
M/S. Shri Valley Refractories Ltd vs The State Of Jharkhand And Others on 19 February, 2025
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
First Appeal No. 269 of 2023
M/s. Shri Valley Refractories Ltd. Plaintiff/Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand and others ... Defendants/Respondents
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Appellant : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, S.C. I
---
15/19.02.2025 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
2. During the course of argument, the learned counsel for the
appellant has submitted that the suit was decided ex-parte. Neither the
defendants filed their written statement nor they appeared in the case,
nor they cross examined any of the witnesses of the plaintiff. He has
submitted that the suit was filed on the basis of registered deed of sale
executed in favour of the plaintiffs. The suit was filed for declaration
of title and also confirmation of possession and alternative prayer was
also made that if the plaintiff is found dispossessed, he will be put in
possession of the property.
3. The learned counsel has submitted that the cause of action arose
when an entry in record of right came to the knowledge of the plaintiff
in the year 2021 that the property has been recorded in the name of
Anabad Bihar Sarkar showing illegal possession of the plaintiff. He
has submitted that the learned court has recorded possession in favour
of the plaintiff and the respondents has not filed any cross objection or
cross appeal in connection with the finding with regard to possession.
4. The learned counsel has further submitted that the finding of
the learned Trial Court is essentially in one paragraph wherein the
learned Trial Court has referred to Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land
Reforms Act and also by recording that the plaintiff has not proved the
title of his vendor. The learned counsel submits that the title of his
vendor was not in dispute in as much as no written statement was
filed. The Title of the vendor was clearly mentioned in the sale deeds
which were exhibited before the learned court and since the title of the
vendor was not in dispute and the defendant never filed written
statement claiming title or contested the title of the plaintiff, therefore
there was no occasion for the learned Trial Court to decree the suit as
claimed for. He has also submitted that the entry in record of rights by
itself does not create or extinguish any title. He has relied upon the
judgment passed by the Full Bench of Hon'ble Patna High Court
reported in 1987 PLJR 354. He has also submitted that the law is
equally well settled that Khatiyan by itself is not a title of the property
and at best it can be a document of possession.
5. The learned counsel has submitted that the otherwise also the
suit was wrongly dismissed in as much as at least the declaration of
possession in favour of the plaintiff which was decided by the learned
Trial Court ought to have reflected in the decree.
6. The learned counsel has also referred to the interlocutory
application seeking to adduce additional evidence by submitting that
the some of the deeds of the predecessor has been sought to be
brought on record through the interlocutory application which are
registered documents. The learned counsel has submitted that the
additional evidence is sought to be adduced only by way of abundant
precaution however the evidence which were produced before the
learned Trial court were enough to decree the suit.
7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has
opposed the prayer and has submitted that the plaintiff has to make out
a case for seeking the relief and merely because the defendant did not
file the written statement or did not cross examine the witnesses of the
plaintiff, same by itself is not sufficient to decree a suit. He has
submitted that entry in the record of rights has great evidentiary value
and there is a presumption in favour of the entry and the plaintiff did
not lead any evidence to rebut the said presumption.
8. He has relied upon the judgment passed by this Court reported
in (2003) 2 JLJR 708 to submit that the suit itself was barred by
limitation. The record of rights in the instant case was published way
back in the year 2007 and the suit was filed in the year 2022. He has
submitted that it was the duty of the learned Trial Court to take into
consideration the point of limitation sue moto even if no written
statement was filed. He has referred to Section 3 of the Indian
Limitation Act. The learned counsel has also submitted that since the
plaintiff failed to prove the title of the property, therefore the trial
Court has rightly not declared the title of the plaintiff.
9. In response, the learned counsel for the appellant has referred to
the judgment cited by the respondents and has submitted that the date
of knowledge with regard to incorrect entry is an important fact and
this aspect of the matter has also taken care of in the aforesaid
judgment. He has submitted that the specific case of the plaintiff is
that he came to know about the wrong entry in the record of rights
only in the year 2021 and immediately thereafter the suit was filed.
10. The learned counsel has also submitted that the plaintiff did not
avail the remedy under Section 87 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act
and filed the suit and the suit is not barred by law and this aspect of
the matter has also been dealt with in the judgment which has been
cited by the learned counsel for the respondents. He has submitted that
judgment cited by the learned counsel for the respondents if applied to
the facts of this case, would help the appellant.
11. Arguments concluded.
12. Judgment reserved.
13. One week time is granted to the learned counsel for the parties
to file their short synopsis of arguments based on the arguments which
have been advanced in the court proceedings.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Binit
