Jharkhand High Court
Sahdeo Mahto vs Hadi Ram Mahto on 17 July, 2025
2025:JHHC:19510
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Second Appeal No. 119 of 2002
[Against the judgment dated 24.06.2002 passed by the Addl. District and
Sessions Judge-VIII, Dhanbad in Title Appeal No. 39 of 2001]
--------
Sahdeo Mahto, son of Late Bhatu Mahto, resident of village-Konar Tand,
P.O. Birajpur, P.S. Barwadda, District-Dhanbad ... ... Appellant
Versus
1. Hadi Ram Mahto, son of Late Budhu Mahto, resident of village-
Konardih, P.O.-Birajpur, P.S.-Barwadda, District-Dhanbad.
2. Smt. Alaki Mahatain, W/o Late Jitu Mahto, R/o village Konar
Tand, P.O. Birajpur, P.S. Barwadda, Govindpur, Dhanbad.
... ... Respondents
--------
For the Appellant : Mrs. J. Mazumdar, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Ram Chandar Sahu, Advocate
Mr. Om Prakash Singh, Advocate
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
--------
JUDGMENT
C.A.V. on 03.07.2025 Pronounced on 17/07/2025
The instant second appeal is directed against judgement dated
24.06.2002 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge-VIII,
Dhanbad in Title Appeal No. 39/2001, whereby and whereunder the
order dated 14.07.2001 passed in Case No. 4111/91 under section 87 of
Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act by the Revenue Officer, Dhanbad has been
reversed and set aside.
2. This appeal has been admitted vide order dated 22.09.2004 on the
following substantial question of law:-
"Whether the learned lower Appellate Court has committed
errors of law in allowing the claim regarding 40 decimals of
land in plot No. 458 on the basis of written argument at the
appellate stage although the same was not mentioned in the
original petition"
3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal in a narrow campus is that
C.S.Plot No. 438, Area 80 decimal of Khata No. 80 stood recorded in the
name of Hiru Mahto and others showing possession of Hiru Mahto who
died living behind him four sons, namely, Sibu Mahto, Matu Mahto,
2025:JHHC:19510
Guru Mahto and Sambhu Mahto. It is alleged that Guru Mahto and
Sambhu Mahto had died issueless. Under deed dated 07.08.1942, Guru
Mahto and Sambhu Mahto for self and as guardian of Sahdeo Mahto
sold the entire 80 decimals land in favour of sons of Shibu Mahto,
namely, Jitu Mahto, Buddhu Mahto and Chhathi Ram Mahto. Thereafter,
vide deed dated 13.02.1970, Jitu Mahto and Buddhu Mahto sold the area
of 40 decimals out of above C.S. Plot No. 458 in favour of Sahdeo
Mahto, the appellant. During revisional survey, R.S. plot No. 832 & 833
is carved out of plot No. 458, which was recorded in the name of Sahdeo
Mahto under Khata number 324. Thus, recording of name led to filing of
case under section 87 of CNT Act in which the impugned order was
passed by the Revenue Officer, Dhanbad, Shri R.P. Sharma, which was
assailed in Title Appeal No. 39/2001. The Appellate Court reversed the
order passed by the Revenue Officer recording reasons that Jamabandi
No. 507 is standing in the name of Hadi Ram Mahto for lands of 40
decimal, but still has dismissed the case of plaintiff without any rhymes
and reasons and as such the impugned order dated 14.07.2001 is bad in
law and cannot be upheld, accordingly, set aside the order and allowed
the appeal directing the learned court below to correct the map and
records of right as prayed by the plaintiffs with regards to 40 decimal
land in plot No. 83 in the name of plaintiffs of the original suit.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned court
below has failed to consider that the appellant has purchased 40 decimal
lands from Jitu Mahto, son of Shibu Mahto and others through registered
sale deed No. 2450 dated 13.02.1970 and Sahdeo Mahto became
absolute owner of plot No. 832-833/458. The appellant has also got his
name mutated in the Sirista of Government of Bihar and also Jamabandi
was opened in his name and is paying rent to the State Government
regularly. The above facts have been completely ignored by the learned
appellate court as such impugned order is beyond the weight of evidence
available on record. The learned appellate court has failed to appreciate
that in the sale deed dated 7.8.1942, the name of father of the minor
2025:JHHC:19510
sellers, Sambhu Mahto and Sahdeo Mahto is mentioned. The appellate
court further failed to appreciate that the sale deed executed by de facto
guardians of minor is void and came to erroneous finding on the basis of
said void deed alleged to have been executed by de facto guardian of
Sahdeo Mahto and Sambhu Mahto. Therefore, the judgement of the
learned appellate court is absolutely perverse and liable to be set aside,
and this appeal may be allowed.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs
vehemently opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the
appellant and submitted that the first appellate court has very wisely and
aptly decided that the contested question of validity of sale deeds
executed by the parties cannot be entered into in the proceeding by the
revenue authorities, rather, such authorities are concerned only with the
possession and not the complicated question of title. Therefore, there is
no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order calling for any
interference in this appeal, which is fit to be dismissed.
6. I have gone through the impugned orders passed by the revenue
officer, Dhanbad as well as the first appellate court. From perusal of
record, it is quite obvious that in the petition filed by the plaintiffs, there
was no whisper as to how they claimed 40 decimals of land, but in their
written argument filed by the parties, above fact came into light. It is also
apparent that the defendant has not filed any objection to the petition
filed by the plaintiffs, rather, he filed his written argument stating that he
has purchased 40 decimal land of plot No. 458 from Jitu Mahto and
others through the sale deed executed in the year 1942, The said Sahdeo
Mahto has been shown to be son of Hiru Mahto, whose possession was
shown in respect of 40 decimals land, but the same was wrong. The
learned appellate court has also considered that the sale deed of 1970 on
the basis of which the defendant claimed title, there is reference of the
deed of 1942 through which the plaintiffs/appellant claims title.
Therefore, the defendant has got knowledge of the deed of 1942 from
13.02.1970, but no objection was raised nor the contents of deed of 1942
2025:JHHC:19510
were challenged. It also appears that before the final publication, the land
under question were verified from the surveyor who submitted report
stating therein that over 40 decimals of land in C.S. plot No. 458 and
R.S. Plot No. 832 towards South, the plaintiffs are in possession and has
also recorded that 6 decimals land towards north of plot No. 832 is liable
to be cut down and should be added towards southern portion of plot
number 832 in the map.
7. The findings recorded by the appellate court, while reversing the
order passed by the revenue officer, Dhanbad observed that the revenue
officers are concerned only with the possession not with complicated
question of decision on title, the interpretation of sale deeds or other
documents comes within the ambit of exclusive jurisdiction of civil
Court appears to be correct and justified under law. The Plaintiffs are
raising a dispute of title which was wrongly considered by revenue court.
The revenue officer although recorded findings that Jamabandi No. 507
is standing in the name of Hadi Ram Mahto in respect of 40 decimals
land, but still dismissed the case of the plaintiffs without any valid
reasons.
8. In view of the above discussion and reasons, I do not find any
merits in the substantial question of law formulated in this appeal and no
legal force in the points of arguments raised on behalf of the appellant.
Therefore, this appeal is dismissed.
9. Pending I.A.s if any, stands disposed of.
10. Let a copy of this judgment along with the trial/appellate court
records be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Jharkhand High Court
Dated 17/07/2025
Basant/N.A.F.R.
