Jharkhand High Court
Chandravati Devi vs Bidul Devi on 30 June, 2025
2025:JHHC:17230
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Second Appeal No.194 of 2010
Chandravati Devi, Wife of Mathura Prasad Singh, Resident of Village-
Dorma, P.O.- Dorma, P.S.-Torpa, District - Khunti
... Appellant/Defendant
Versus
Bidul Devi, Wife of Abhimanyu Manjhi, Resident of Village+P.O. -
Dorma, P.S. - Torpa, District-Khunti through her husband and attorney
holder Abhimanyu Manjhi, son of Dhananjay Manjhi, resident of Vill.-
Dorma, P.O.-Dorma, P.S.-Dorma (as per - Decree, but P.S.-Torpa),
Dist.-Khunti. ...
Respondent/Plaintiff
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
For the Appellant : Mr. Manjul Prasad, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Baban Prasad, Advocate
Mr. Akhouri Prakhar Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Aman Kedia, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. G.K. Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Vaibhav Joshi, Advocate
Mr. Chanchal Chaaya, Advocate
Mr. Priyanka Bobby, Advocate
Order No.14/Dated- 30.06.2025
1. Heard Mr. Manjul Prasad, learned senior counsel for the
appellant as well as Mr. G.K. Sinha, learned counsel for the
respondent.
2. The instant second appeal has been filed by the appellant
challenging against the judgment dated 28.09.2010 and decree
13.10.2010 passed in Title Appeal No.98 of 2008 by learned
Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ist, Khunti, affirming the
judgment dated 04.08.2008 and decree dated 12.08.2008 passed in
Title Suit No.15 of 2004 by Court of Munsif, Khunti whereby and
whereunder the suit of the appellant has been dismissed.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that this
appeal was admitted on vide order dated 25.08.2017 on following
substantial questions of law:
"Learned appellate court also framed issue of limitation
being issue No.3 as to whether the finding of both learned
2025:JHHC:17230
appellate court and trial Court have vitiated the provisions of
law and also failed to consider the section 64 of the Indian
Limitation Act in correct perspective."
4. Elucidating his argument in respect of substantial questions
of law, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the
appellant/defendant has purchased the suit property pertaining
to Khata No.115 Plot No.2702 area 0.84 acres (84 decimal) through
registered sale deed (Ext.1-b) executed by Bidul Devi (plaintiff) in
favour of Chandravati Devi appellant/defendant registered sale
deed No. 3168 dated 08.04.1980. Later on, the plaintiff started
claiming over half portion area 42 decimal of her own and after
lapse of 24 years instituted the Title Suit No. 15 of 2004 for
declaration of proper title over the half portion of the aforesaid
land which was decreed by learned Trial Court as well as learned
Appellate Court ignoring the facts that the appellant has
continuously remained in possession of over 84 decimal of the
land sold to her and perfected her title by virtue of Article 64
appended to Schedule 1 to the Indian Limitation Act, 1963.
Therefore, concurrent findings of learned Trial Court as well as
learned Appellate Court suffers from perversity which has to be
set aside and this appeal may be allowed.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has
submitted that the original registered sale deed 08.04.1980
executed by plaintiff Bidul Devi in favour of Smt. Chandravati
Devi (present appellant/defendant) clearly goes to show that the
description of property mentioned in the sale deed page 2 is Khata
No.115 Plot No.2702 total area 84 decimal out of which towards
East side, half portion, i.e., 42 decimal. There is no question at all
that the appellant/defendant had ever been in possession of the
said portion of the land adverse to the plaintiff rather
measurement was also conducted through Circle Officer and
2025:JHHC:17230
portion of the land of plaintiff has been demarcated and
separated. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned
judgment and decree concurrently based upon the learned Trial
Court as well as learned Appellate Court. This appeal is based
upon the misconception of facts and materials evidence adduced
by the parties and fit to be dismissed.
6. I have gone through the impugned judgments and decree
passed by learned Trial Court in Title Suit No. 15 of 2004 as well
as by learned Appellate Court in Title Appeal No.98 of 2008 along
with documentary evidence adduced by the parties.
7. It appears that the very basis of the claim of the appellant
over the entire area of 84 decimal in Khata No.115 Plot No.2702 is
beyond the description in the sale deed executed in her favour
apparently the sale deed has been executed in respect of half
portion of the total area of 84 decimal towards Eastern side and
that has also been demarcated by the competent revenue
authorities. The claim of appellant through adverse possession has
not been pleaded and proved.
8. In view of the above discussion and reasons, I do not find
any merit in this appeal which stands dismissed.
9. Pending I.As., if any, also stand dismissed.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Sachin
