Jharkhand High Court
Sheo Prasad Sahu vs Smt. Shanti Devi Wife Of Vijay Nandan ... on 18 July, 2025
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
2025:JHHC:19774
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Civil Review No. 85 of 2022
------
1. Sheo Prasad Sahu
2. Surendra Prasad
3. Kameshwar Prasad
4. Rambilas Prasad Sahu
All are sons of Late Dhana Sahu, resident of Village & P.O. Balu
(Kapardar), at present Village, P.O. & P.S. Balumath, District Latehar
.... .... .... Petitioners
Versus
1. Smt. Shanti Devi wife of Vijay Nandan Singh @ Vijay Kumar Singh @
Vijay Singh
2. Vijay Nandan Singh @ Vijay Kumar Singh, son of Late Jagdish Singh
Both resident of Village Bibi Pesra, P.O. Diwania, P.S. Barachatti, District
Gaya (Bihar), at present P.O. & P.S. Balumath, District Latehar
3. Sheo Pati Devi, wife of Late Ashanandan Singh
4. Amit Kumar Singh, son of Ashanandan Singh
Both resident of Village Bibi Pesra, P.O. Diwania, P.S. Barachatti, District
Gaya (Bihar)
5. Mamta Devi, wife of Arun Singh, resident of Village Baria, P.O. Sahia, P.S.
Wajirganj, District Gaya (Bihar)
6. Sajukta Devi, wife of Abhay Singh, resident of Village Khiriyawan,
P.O. Sahia, P.S. Wajirganj, District Gaya (Bihar)
.... .... .... Opp. Parties
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioners : Mr. Pradip Modi, Advocate
Mr. Sarvendra Kumar, Advocate
For the O.P. Nos.1&2: Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
Ms. Puja Agrawal, Advocate
For the O.P. Nos.3-4 : Md. Hatim, Advocate
------
Order No.11 Dated : 18.07.2025
Instant review petition has been filed to review the judgment and
decree passed by this Court in Second Appeal No.80 of 2010 by which
judgment and decree passed in Title Appeal No. 02 of 2008 was set aside and
the plaintiffs' suit was decreed.
2. Plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of title on the basis of the
registered deeds of gift bearing no.5561 dated 06.06.1986 and 9564 dated
26.08.1988.
3. The defendants claim title on the basis of Sale Deed Nos.1374 and 1375
dated 25.08.1982. Learned trial Court decreed the suit which was reversed in
first appeal against which the second appeal was preferred before this Court,
which was allowed.
4. Aggrieved by the Judgment in second appeal, the
2025:JHHC:19774
respondents/appellants/ defendants has preferred instant review petition inter
alia on the ground that there are errors apparent on the face of the record. It is
contended that there was definite pleading in the written statement with
regard to plea of adverse possession taken by the defendant and this was
acknowledged in the judgment as well. However, in para 21, page 9, it has been
stated in the judgment that defendants had failed to plead and prove the basic
ingredient of adverse possession to entitle them to title of the suit property by
adverse possession. A specific reference is made in para 3 of the written
statement where plea of adverse possession has been taken.
5. It is submitted by learned counsel on behalf of opposite parties that
there was general pleading on adverse possession at one place i.e. para no.3,
but specific pleading as required by law, was not pleaded with details. Further,
no issue was framed on adverse possession by the trial Court.
6. It is also argued that claim of the plaintiffs was on the basis of
registered gift of deeds executed by Smt. Adhikari Devi, who was Class I heir
of the Schedule under Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, whereas vendor
of the review petitioners/defendants was not Class I heir and had no right to
transfer the property. It is argued that under the garb of a review application,
Petitioner is challenging the judgment on merit.
7. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides
it is evident that petitioner seeks review by asserting his possessory title over
the land. Initially the claim was made of proprietary title, on a sale deed
executed by a person having no right title over the property in question. In
order to claim adverse possession, one need to first admit the title of the owner
of the property then claim can be set up on the basis of adverse possession.
Here the petitioner asserted both possessory title and proprietary title. Law is
settled that in order to succeed in a claim of title based on adverse possession, a
party is required to plead and prove fundamental ingredients as laid down by
the Apex Court in Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Government of India & Others,
(2004) 10 SCC 779 :(a) on what date he came into possession, (b) what was the
nature of his possession, (c) whether the factum of possession was known to
the other party, (d) how long his possession has continued, and (e) his
possession was open and undisturbed.
8. Although general defence was taken, but pleading was bereft of the
details as stated above. The very fact that even the issue of adverse possession
was not framed by the trial Court. It was for these reasons the claim of title on
2025:JHHC:19774
adverse possession was refused.
9. Under the circumstance, review petition fails and is accordingly,
dismissed with cost assessed to Rs.5000/-. Learned executing Court is directed
to proceed with the execution as per the guidelines laid down by the Apex
Court in Rahul S. Shah Vs. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi, (2021) 6 SCC 418.
Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Anit
