Jharkhand High Court
Sairul Khatoon And Others vs Bhuwan Ansari And Others on 30 October, 2025
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S. A. No. 80 of 2021
Sairul Khatoon and Others
...... Defendants/Respondents/Appellants
Versus
Bhuwan Ansari and Others
... ... Plaintiffs/Appellants/Respondents
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Appellants : Mr. Niladri S. Mukharjee, Advocate
For the Respondents :
---
15/30.10.2025
1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants.
2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment passed by
learned District Judge-IV, Lohardaga dated 20.12.2019 in Title
Appeal No. 30 of 2012 (decree signed on 04.01.2020) whereby the
judgment passed on 29.08.2012 (decree signed on 07.09.2012) passed
by learned Civil Judge Junior Division No.4-Munsif, Lohardaga in
Title Suit No. 09 of 2023 was reversed.
3. The suit was dismissed and the appeal was allowed.
Consequently, the defendants are appellants before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that
essentially the suit was filed in connection with plot No. 2198 of
Khata No. 89 and the defendants claimed that they have purchased
1.02 decimal land vide registered sale deed bearing No. 2693 dated
30.08.1966. He has submitted that the learned trial court dismissed the
suit by observing that the issue was whether the plot in relation to the
registered deed was 2198 or 2192 and observed that there was a very
minute difference in the registered sale deed executed by the
defendants and accordingly proceeded with respect to the identity of
the suit property as 'Khaliyan Tarn'. He submits that thereafter the
suit was dismissed.
5. However, the learned 1st appellate court had reversed the
judgment passed by the learned trial court by referring to Exhibit-5
and 5/1 which was a document produced from the office of District
Sub-Registrar, Lohardaga in which with respect to the registered sale
deed, plot No.2192 was mentioned.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that once the
identity of the property as 'Khaliyan Tarn' was established, it made no
difference if there was an error in the registered sale deed while
recording the plot number. He submits that this aspect of the matter
was properly considered by the learned trial court, but the learned 1st
appellate court has wrongly reversed the finding and accordingly, the
substantial question of law be framed.
7. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2006 0 Supreme (SC) 584
[Subhaga & Others vs. Shobha & Others] and has referred to
paragraph 6 and has submitted that it has been held that they property
can be identified either by boundary or by any other specific
description which is well established.
8. However, during the course of argument and upon a query
made by this Court, the learned counsel for the appellants has fairly
submitted that it was never the case of the defendants that the plot
number was wrongly mentioned in the registered sale deed or there
was any error in connection with the sale deed.
9. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, this Court
finds that the suit was filed by the plaintiffs seeking a declaration of
right, title and interest over the suit land mentioned in Schedule A of
plaint in connection with Village-Senha, P.S.- Senha, District-
Lohardaga under R.S. Khata No.89, Plot No. 2198, area 0.2½
decimals and also seeking a relief permanently restraining the
defendants from disturbing peaceful possession of the plaintiffs with
respect to the suit land.
10. As the court's time is over, post this case tomorrow, i.e. on 31st
October, 2025 for further dictation.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
30.10.2025
Rakesh/-
