Jharkhand High Court
Bihari Mandal Son Of Late Lakhi Mandal vs Tej Narain Rai Son Of Late Lakhi Rai (Died ... on 23 July, 2025
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
2025:JHHC:20211
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S.A. No. 125 of 2017
1. Bihari Mandal son of Late Lakhi Mandal
2. Dharam Mandal son of Late Lakhi Mandal
3. Medo Mandal son of Late Lakhi Mandal
4. Raghu Nath Mandal son of Late Lakhi Mandal
5. Hari Mandal son of Late Deboo Mandal
6. Binay Mandal son of Late Deboo Mandal
7. Savitri Devi daughter of Late Deboo Mandal
All resident of village- Sukhora, P.O. & P.S.- Sarath, District
Deoghar.
8. Kamli Devya, wife of Late Mouzi Mandal
9. Pyari Devi wife of Late Rajendra Mandal
10. Jagdish Mandal son of Late Rajendra Mandal
11.Sanjay Mandal son of Late Rajendra Mandal
12.Radhika Kumari daughter of Late Rajendra Mandal.
All resident of village - Kharagdiha, P.S.- Mohanpur, District -
Deoghar. ... ... Plaintiffs/Appellants/ Appellants
Versus
1. Tej Narain Rai son of Late Lakhi Rai (died and substituted vide
order dated 15.04.2025)
1(a) Chandrawati Devi W/o Late Tej Narain Rai
1(b) Tilakdhari Rai S/o Late Tej Narain Rai
1(c) Shrikant Rai @ Lakhsmi Narayan Rai S/o Late Tej Narain Rai
1(d) Usha Devi
1(e) Kajo Devi
1(f) Rinku Devi
1(g) Guriya Devi
1(h) Nilam Devi
1(d) to 1(h) D/o Late Tej Narain Rai
1(d) to 1(h) all residents of village- Barghawa, P.O + P.S.- Mohanpur,
Dist- Deoghar (Jharkhand).
... ... Defendants 1st Party/Respondents 1st
Party/Respondents
2. Dukhi Mandal son of Late Kartik Mandal.
3. Dhaneshwari Devi wife of Late Prasadi Mandal.
4. Narayan Mandal son of Late Prasadi Mandal.
5. Manoj Kumar Mandal son of Late Prasadi Mandal.
6. Anil Kumar Mandal (minor) son of Late Prasadi Mandal.
7. Sunil Kumar Mandal (minor) son of Late Prasadi Mandal.
All resident of Village - Kharagdiha, P.O. & P.S.-Mohanpur, District -
Deoghar.
8. Sinki Devi daughter of Late Prasadi Mandal and wife of Subodh
Sah, resident of Village - Bounsi, P.O. & P.S. - Bounsi, District -
Banka.
9. Binita Devi daughter of Late Prasadi Mandal and wife of Arbind
Mandal, resident of Village - Simarjore, P.O. & P.S. - Mohanpur,
District - Deoghar.
10. Godawari Mandal, son of Late Kartik Mandal.
2025:JHHC:20211
11. Ramjitan Mandal, son of Late Kartik Mandal.
Both resident of Village - Kharagdiha, P.O. & P.S.-Mohanpur,
District - Deoghar.
... ... Defendants 2nd Party/Respondents 2nd
Party/Respondents
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Appellants : Mr. Rajiv Nandan Prasad, Advocate
: Mr. Manoj Kumar (No.4), Advocate
nd
For the Defendants 2 party : Ms. Bakshi Vibha, Advocate
For the Defendants 1st party : None
---
20/23.07.2025 Heard the Learned counsel for the appellants and Defendants
2nd party.
2. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and
decree dated 25.01.2017 (decree signed on 07.02.2017) passed by
learned District Judge-V, Deoghar in Title Appeal No. 43 of 2006
whereby the learned 1st appellate court dismissed the appeal and
upheld the judgment and decree dated 18.08.2006 (decree signed on
01.09.2006) passed by the learned Sub-Judge-II, Deoghar in Title Suit
No. 48/1989/691/1997. The plaintiffs are appellants before this Court.
3. This appeal was admitted vide order dated 18.12.2018 for
hearing on the following substantial question of law:-
"Whether the learned courts below have committed a serious
error of law in holding that the plaintiff is not competent to
challenge the validity of the settlement made to the
Defendant-2nd party by Bhoodan Yagya Committee although
the suit land has been settled with the plaintiff vide order
dated 13.06.1964 passed in Settlement Case No. 72 /1962-63
and the claim of the Defendant - 2nd party is on the basis of
land given to him in Bhoodan Yagya and affirmed by
Revenue Authority vide Case No. 78/1980-81."
4. The prayers made in the present suit were as follows:
(i) For a decree of declaration that the suit lands are fouti;
(ii) For decree of declaration that the proceeding of
Subordinate Judge, Deoghar and the Second Additional
District Judge, Dumka are illegal, void and not binding
2025:JHHC:20211
on the plaintiffs being act of collusion, fraud one to
suppression of the factum of Dan Patra prior to
institution of the suit.
(iii) For decree for declaration that the proceeding of
Bhoodan Committee is illegal, void and not binding on
the plaintiffs.
(iv) For a declaration of right, title of the plaintiffs and
confirmation of possession of the plaintiffs over the suit
lands.
(v) For temporary and permanent injunction restraining the
defendant 1st party and the defendants 2nd party from
interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs.
(vi) For cost of the suit.
(vii) For any other relief or reliefs which the court may deem
fit and necessary.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the
plaintiffs are claiming the property by way of settlement made in
Settlement Case No. 72 of 1962-63 after the property was declared as
'fauti' under the provisions of Santhal Parganas Tenancy
(Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as
SPT Act). An appeal was filed by the father of defendant 1st party
against the order of settlement which was dismissed on 17.12.1964
and thereafter, the father of defendant 1st party had filed a title suit
being Title Suit No. 33 of 1965 / 25 of 1968 which was decided in their
favour on 13.07.1968. Against the said judgement dated 13.07.1968,
the father of the plaintiffs of the present case filed Title Appeal No. 55
of 1968/ 25 of 1974 which was dismissed on 24.05.1975/05.06.1975.
However, father of the plaintiffs was never dispossessed from the
property. Neither the defendant 1st party nor their successor-in-
interest ever came in possession of the property. The learned counsel
has further submitted that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit
property. The plaintiffs came to know that the defendants 2nd party
were claiming title through patta issued by Bhoodan Yagna
Committee and consequently the present suit was filed.
6. The recorded tenant of the suit property was Bhagu Rai who
died issueless, but the defendants 1st party claimed to be the legal heir
and successor of Bhagu Rai and asserted in the written statement that
2025:JHHC:20211
the suit property could not have been declared 'Fauti'. It was also
stated that title suit was filed by successor of recorded tenant, Lakhi
Rai for a declaration that he had the right, title and interest over the
property and also for a declaration that order passed by the Sub-
divisional Officer, Deoghar in Settlement Case No. 72 of 1962-63 was
wrong, illegal and without jurisdiction. A prayer was also made for
confirmation of possession. Lakhi Rai died during the pendency of the
suit and substituted by his wife Chinta Devi and Tej Narain Rai. The
suit was decreed and the aforesaid order of settlement with respect to
the same suit property as involved in this case was set-aside. Title
appeal was also dismissed and in the execution case the possession
was also handed over to Chinta Devi.
7. The defendants 2nd party had also filed a written statement
wherein the case of the plaintiffs was denied. However, it stood
admitted that the suit property was recorded in the name of Bhagu Rai.
They have also stated that in the recent survey Khatiyan, their name
has been recorded and they are in possession of the property and this
is because of the reason that the property was given to them under
Bhoodan in the name of Ram Jitan Mandal and Prasadi Mandal. These
defendants have also stated that after the death of recorded tenant,
Ramu Mandal had filed an application seeking to declare the land as
'Fauti'. These defendants have also stated that since Lakhi Rai was the
legal heir of Bhagu Rai, therefore, such an application could not have
been filed and consequently, suit was filed being Title Suit No. 33 of
1965/25 of 1968 to get a declaration that the declaration of the
property as 'Fauti' was null and void which was decreed.
8. It has also been asserted by the defendants 2nd party that the
possession of the property continued with Kartik Mandal and this was
because of the reason that Chinta Devi had given the property to
Bhoodan committee and Bhoodan confirmation case was filed before
revenue court and the Bhoodan Samiti Patta was affirmed by the
Revenue Court in Case No. 78 of 1980-81. Through Bhoodan patta
Ram Jitan Mandal got property in plot no. 241 to the extent of 1 acre
and in plot no. 242 to the extent of 0.57 acres and Prasadi Mandal got
2025:JHHC:20211
property in plot no. 241 to the extent of 1.57 acres and thereafter, the
defendants 2nd party continued to be in possession of the property and
have been cultivating the land. It has further been stated by the
defendants 2nd party that since the suit was ultimately decided in
favour of Chinta Devi and her son, therefore, the suit property
belonged to Chinta Devi and her son and since Chinta Devi had
already handed over the property through Bhoodan, therefore, her
transfer of property through Bhoodan was validated. The defendants
2nd party also denied the statement of the plaintiffs with regard to
possession and they have also asserted that the plaintiffs were
dispossessed by virtue of the judgement passed in Title Suit No. 33 of
1965/25 of 1968.
9. Altogether 8 issues were framed by the learned trial court and
since issue nos. 3 to 7 were related, they were taken up together. It has
been recorded by the learned trial court that the defendant 1 st party
namely, Tej Narain Rai although filed the written statement, but
thereafter he neither gave any evidence nor contested the suit and
therefore, the suit was decided uncontested so far as the defendant 1 st
party is concerned. The suit was ultimately contested between the
plaintiffs and the defendants 2nd party.
10. It was decided by the learned trial court that the plaintiffs did
not have right, title, interest and possession over the suit property; the
decree passed in the earlier title suit was valid and binding and the
claim of the plaintiffs was barred by the principles of res-judicata.
Consequently, it was held that the plaintiffs did not have the right to
challenge the Bandobasti made in favour of the defendants 2nd party
through Bhoodan and ultimately, all the issues were decided against
the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendants 2nd party.
11. The learned 1st appellate court framed the points of
determination in paragraph 11 of the judgment which are quoted as
under:
"(I) Whether the suit is barred by principles of res
judicata?
2025:JHHC:20211
(II) Whether the plaintiffs/appellants have any right, title
or possession over the suit land?
(III) Whether the Bhoodan Pattas granted to Prasadi
Mandal and Ram Jitan Mandal are legal and valid
documents?"
12. The finding of the learned 1st appellate court in connection with
all the points for determination, which were decided jointly, are in
paragraph 12 onwards of the judgement and the appeal was dismissed.
All the points for determination were decided against the plaintiffs.
13. Learned counsel for the appellants has referred to section 63
of the SPT Act to submit that the title suit which was filed by Lakhi
Rai numbered as Title Suit No. 33 of 1965/25 of 1968 was itself not
maintainable as no suit can be entertained in any court to vary, modify
or set-aside, either directly or indirectly, any order of the Deputy
Commissioner in an application which is to be decided by the Deputy
Commissioner. He has submitted that the Deputy Commissioner was
empowered to declare a property 'Fauti' and also to pass an order of
settlement and such an order having been passed, it could not be
subject matter of suit and therefore, the decree passed in the earlier
suit being Title Suit No. 33 of 1965/25 of 1968 setting aside the order
of settlement is a nullity in the eyes of law. For the power of
settlement, he has referred to sections 27 and 28 of the SPT Act and
has submitted that there is a bar to file suit in civil court under section
63 of the SPT Act.
14. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that it was
absolutely incorrect to say that the decree holder in the Title Suit No.
33 of 1965/25 of 1968 ever executed the decree or that the plaintiffs/
their predecessor were ever dispossessed. It was the case of the
plaintiffs-appellants that they remained in possession in spite of the
decree passed by the learned trial court in Title Suit No. 33 of 1965/25
of 1968.
15. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that
consequently the plaintiffs had the full right and authority to challenge
the settlement made in favour of the defendants 2nd party through
2025:JHHC:20211
Bhoodan as Chinta Devi had no right to donate the property in
Bhoodan in view of the fact that the property was already settled in
favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs through
settlement. He submits that the substantial question of law is fit to be
answered in their favour and the suit be decreed.
Findings of this Court
16. It is not in dispute that the suit property was originally recorded
in the name of Bhagu Rai who died issueless. It is further not in
dispute that the suit property was declared 'Fauti' and thereafter,
settled in favour of Ramu Mandal vide order passed in Settlement
Case No. 72 of 1962-63 under the provisions of SPT Act. The said
settlement was challenged by Lakhi Rai (father of defendant 1 st party)
in Revenue Miscellaneous Appeal No. 83 of 1964-65 which stood
dismissed vide order dated 17.12.1964 (exhibit-3).
17. Lakhi Rai had filed Title Suit No. 33 of 1965/25 of 1968 before
Sub-Judge, Deoghar for setting-aside the order passed by Sub-
divisional Officer as well as the appellate authority and for declaration
of his right, title and interest over the suit land. During pendency of
the said suit, Lakhi Rai died and he was substituted by his wife Chinta
Devi and his son. Ultimately, the suit was decreed vide judgment
dated 13.07.1968 (exhibit-F).
18. The perusal of judgment dated 13.07.1968 (exhibit-F) reveals
that the suit was filed seeking a declaration that the said plaintiffs have
got right, title and interest to the suit land and also for a declaration
that the order passed by Sub-divisional officer, Deoghar in Settlement
Case No. 72 of 1962-63 was wrong, illegal and without jurisdiction.
The plaintiffs had also prayed for confirmation of possession. The
Court ultimately decreed the suit and ordered as under:
"That the suit be decreed on contest with costs. Pleader's fee
Rs. 16. It is declared that the order passed in Settlement
Case No. 72 of 1962-63 by the Sub-divisional Officer,
Deoghar on 13.6.64 and also the order passed by the Deputy
Commissioner in Revision Misc. Appeal No. 83 of 1964-65
on 17.12. 64 are wrong, illegal and without jurisdiction. It is
also declared that the plaintiffs is the legal heir of Bhagu Rai
and has perfected right, title and interest to the suit land."
2025:JHHC:20211
19. Thus, the aforesaid judgment dated 13.07.1968 had not only
declared the order passed in the settlement case as wrong and illegal,
but also declared that the same was without jurisdiction.
20. It is also admitted that the said judgment dated 13.07.1968
(exhibit-F) was challenged by father of Ramu Mandal in Title Appeal
No. 55 of 1968/ 25 of 1974 but the appeal was dismissed vide
judgment and decree dated 24.05.1975/05.06.1975 (exhibit-F/1 and
F/2 respectively). The plaintiffs or their father did not further
challenge the judgment passed in Title Appeal and it became final.
21. In the present case, son of late Ramu Mandal filed suit against
son of late Lakhi Rai who was made defendant 1 st party and there
were another set of defendants termed as 'defendants 2 nd party' who
were claiming the property on the ground that Chinta Devi had given
the suit property in Bhoodan and ultimately, Bhoodan purcha was
issued in the name of their predecessor.
22. The suit was dismissed and the 1st appeal was also dismissed as
discussed above.
23. It is the specific argument of the learned counsel for the
appellants that the entire proceeding in Title Suit No. 33 of 1965/25 of
1968 is void ab initio and was not maintainable in view of bar under
section 63 of SPT Act and therefore, the judgment passed therein is
null and void and hence not binding on the parties.
24. This Court finds that the learned Court in Title Suit No. 33 of
1965/25 of 1968 had not only declared that the order passed in
Settlement Case No. 72 of 1962-63 by Sub-divisional Officer,
Deoghar and the orders passed by the appellate and revisional
authority were wrong and illegal but had also held that the said orders
were wholly without jurisdiction. This Court also finds that in the said
judgment dated 13.07.1968, the fact that Lakhi Rai was the legal heir
of Bhagu Rai was also decided.
25. The perusal of the said judgment (Exhibit-F) also reveals that
the Court had also discussed the issue as to whether the Court has the
jurisdiction to declare the decision of revenue court as null and void
and while coming to the decision, the court from paragraph 13 to 15 of
2025:JHHC:20211
the judgement clearly considered the argument of the defendant of the
said case that the court had no jurisdiction to vary, modify or set-aside
the order passed in the revenue case as the defendant of the said case
had relied upon the provision of section 63 of SPT Act. The import of
the said section 63 was duly discussed and considered by the learned
court in paragraph 14 of its judgment passed in the earlier suit being
Title Suit No. 33 of 1965/25 of 1968 wherein it was held that if the
orders are passed without jurisdiction, then it can be declared illegal or
void by the competent court. The learned court also declared that
Lakhi Rai was the legal heir of Bhagu Rai and also held that even if he
was not a legal heir, he had perfected his title by remaining in
possession for more than 12 years as trespasser and therefore, the land
was not 'Fauti' and therefore, application of the defendant of the said
case was not cognizable by revenue court and consequently, the orders
passed by the revenue courts were passed without jurisdiction and
therefore, void and illegal.
26. The perusal of exhibit-F reveals that every aspect of the matter
including jurisdiction of the court and applicability of section 63 of
SPT Act was also taken into consideration which was directly and
substantially in issue in the earlier suit between the plaintiffs and the
defendant 1st party of this case. This court is of the considered view
that the learned 1st appellate court has rightly held that the present suit
on this point was barred by res-judicata.
27. It is not in dispute that the property was given by Chinta Devi
to Bhoodan Yagna Committee. The legal heirs and successors of
Chinta Devi who were defendant 1st party did not contest the suit
although they filed a written statement. So far as defendants 2nd party
is concerned, they were claiming the suit property by virtue of
settlement through Bhoodan and in support of that, they produced two
exhibits (exhibit-A and A/1). It was clear that Chinta Devi had
donated the land to Bihar Bhoodan Yagna Committee and they were
subsequently settled in favour of Ram Jitan Mandal and Prasadi
Mandal and the Bhoodan settlement was confirmed by the learned
Land Reform Deputy Commissioner in Bhoodan Confirmation Case
2025:JHHC:20211
No. 78 of 1980-81 and Exhibit-H is the order of LRDC passed in
Bhoodan Confirmation Case No. 78 of 1980-81, by this order
Bhoodan settlement of defendants 2nd party was confirmed.
28. This Court is of the considered view that the entire claim of the
plaintiffs was based on declaration of land as 'Fauti' followed by
settlement made in Settlement Case No. 72 of 1962-63 and the same
having been held to be without jurisdiction in the previous suit taking
into consideration all the aspects of the matter including section 63 of
the SPT Act, the learned courts have committed no error in holding
that the plaintiffs were not competent to challenge the validity of the
settlement made to defendants 2nd party by Bhoodan Yagna
Committee with respect to the property which was given by Chinta
Devi , the legal heir of recorded tenant to Bhoodan Yagna Committee
and the settlement patta of Bhoodan Yagna Committee was also duly
validated. The learned 1st appellate court has rightly held as under:
"The judgment of the earlier suit is binding upon both the
parties and therefore, the present suit is not maintainable as
the matter in question has already been decided in an earlier
suit. The present suit is hit by the principles of res-judicata
and the learned lower court has rightly dismissed the suit on
this ground."
29. It is held that the learned courts have not committed any error
of law in holding that the plaintiffs are not competent to challenge the
validity of the settlement made to the Defendants - 2nd party by
Bhoodan Yagna Committee although the suit land was earlier declared
'fauti' and settled with the plaintiff in Settlement Case No. 72 /1962-
63 under SPT Act. This is due to the fact that the order of settlement
under the S.P.T Act was held to be without jurisdiction and was set-
aside and declaration of the land as 'fauti' was also set-aside after full
contest on all aspects of the matter including bar to civil suit under
section 63 of the SPT Act in the earlier suit being Title Suit No. 33 of
1965/25 of 1968. The claim of the Defendants - 2nd party is on the
basis of land given to them in Bhoodan Yagna and affirmed by
Revenue Authority vide Case No. 78/1980-81 and the land was
2025:JHHC:20211
donated to Bohdan Yagna Committee by the legal heir of the recorded
tenant - Chinta Devi.
30. The substantial question of law is answered against the
appellants-plaintiffs and in favour of the respondents-defendants 2nd
party.
31. This second appeal is accordingly dismissed.
32. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Pankaj
