Jharkhand High Court
Hem Prasad Singh Munda vs Srikant Singh Munda on 18 September, 2025
2025:JHHC:28873
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Second Appeal No. 09 of 2005
[Against the Judgment dated 11.10.2004 and Decree sealed and
signed on 19.10.2004 passed by learned 1st Additional Judicial
Commissioner, Khunti (Ranchi), in Title Appeal No. 57 of 2000 ]
1. Hem Prasad Singh Munda, Son of Late Basant Lal Babu.
2. (i) Gobardhan Singh Munda, Son of Late Phutu Singh
Munda.
3. (i) Om Prakash Singh Munda.
3. (ii) Sudhanshu Singh Munda.
Both sons of Late Thakur Singh Munda.
3. (iii) Tulawati Devi, Wife of Late Thakur Singh Munda.
Sl. No. 2 (i), 3. (i) to 3. (iii) all resident of Village
- Situdih, P.O. & P.S. - Sonahatu, District - Ranchi.
4. (i) Devi Balal Devi, Wife of Late Dhanjay Singh Munda.
4. (ii) Shaktim Singh Munda, Minor Son of Late Dhanjay
Singh Munda, represented by her mother Devi Bala Devi.
5. Robin Singh Munda, Son of Late Basant Lal Singh
Munda.
Sl. No. (1), 4. (i), 4. (ii) & 5, all resident of Village
- Hasdih, P.O. & P.S. - Sonahatu, District - Ranchi.
... Defendants/Appellants/Appellants
-Versus-
1. Srikant Singh Munda
2. Kartik Singh Munda
Sl. Nos. (1) & (2) both minor sons of Late Jagarnath
Singh Munda being represented through their mother
and natural guardian Most. Shakuntala Mundain i.e.
respondent no. 3.
3. Most. Shakuntala Mundain, Widow of Late Jagarnath
Singh Munda.
4. Jeewan Singh Munda, Son of Late Pushkar Singh
Munda.
All residents of Village - Hesadih, Tola -
Sonhahatu, P.O. and P.S. - Sonhahatu, District -
Ranchi.
... Plaintiffs / Respondents / Respondents
5. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, P.O., P.S. and
District - Ranchi.
... Defendant / Respondent / Respondent
.....
For the Appellants : Mr. K.K. Ambastha, Advocate.
Mr. Abdul Wahab, Advocate.
Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advocate.
Mr. Anurag Chandra, Advocate.
Page 1 of 14
2025:JHHC:28873
For the Respondent : Mr. Ayush Aditya, Advocate.
.....
P R E S E N T
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
JUDGMENT
C.A.V. on 1 5 .07.2025 Pronounced on 18.09.2025
1. Heard Mr. K.K. Ambastha, learned counsel for the
appellants and Mr. Ayush Aditya, learned counsel for
the respondents.
2. The instant second appeal has been preferred by the
appellants, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the
judgment and decree dated 11.10.2004 (decree signed
on 19.10.2004) passed by learned 1st Additional
Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Title Appeal No. 57
of 2000, whereby and whereunder, the appeal has
been dismissed and the judgment dated 29.09.2000
(decree signed on 10.11.2000) passed by learned
Additional Munsif, Khunti in Title Suit No. 09/1995
has been upheld and confirmed.
FACTUAL MATRIX
3. The Title Suit No. 9 of 1995 was instituted by
respondents / plaintiffs for declaration of their right,
title, interest and possession over the suit land along
with confirmation of possession. It is alleged that both
parties are members of Munda Scheduled Tribe and
guided by their own usage and customs in the matter
of succession and inheritance, whereby the females
2025:JHHC:28873
are excluded from inheritance. It is further alleged
that plaintiffs and proforma defendant no. 6 are
settled Raiyat, whereas defendants are Mundari
Khunt Kattidari landlords of the same village, who
realize the rent from Khunt Kattidari Tenants. The
suit schedule lands were recorded in the revisional
survey in the name of one Bigal Singh Munda, who
out of legal necessity sold part of the land (suit
schedule land) to Mohan Munda and Pushkar Munda
through registered sale deed dated 16.05.1943. The
plaintiff nos. 1 to 3 are the heirs of Mohan Munda and
plaintiff no. 4 and proforma defendant no. 6 are the
heirs of Pushkar Munda. It is further alleged that the
defendants, being the landlords are claiming the lands
as their own and creating disturbances, which gave
rise to cause of action for the present suit.
4. On the other hand, the defendants appeared and
contested the suit by filing joint written statement and
pleaded that the widow of recorded raiyat Bigal Singh
Munda surrendered the suit land to the landlords on
11.08.1947, who accepted the same. However, the
proforma defendant no. 6, being legal heirs of one of
the purchasers instituted a case under Section 71(A)
of the C.N.T. Act, but lost the same up to the appeal.
Hence, the suit is not maintainable and also barred
by law of limitation.
2025:JHHC:28873
5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following
issues were settled by the learned trial court:-
(i) Is the suit maintainable in its present form?
(ii) Has the plaintiffs any cause of action for the
suit?
(iii) Is the suit barred by law of limitation and
adverse possession?
(iv) Have the plaintiffs any right, title and interest
over the suit land?
(v) Have the defendants any right, title and interest
over the suit land?
(vi) Are the plaintiffs entitled for any relief or reliefs?
6. The learned trial court decided the core Issue Nos. (iv)
& (v) taking together for adjudication and recorded
findings that the sale deed executed in 1943 by the
recorded raiyat Bigal Singh Munda is genuine and
witnesses examined by the plaintiffs have also
supported the factum of possession over the suit land
of the plaintiffs since long. The question of surrender
after execution of sale deed by the recorded raiyat by
his own wife in favour of landlords does not arise.
Accordingly, the learned trial court decreed the suit
on contest with cost. The defendants preferred the
first appeal i.e. Title Appeal No. 57 of 2000. On the
basis of points of argument raised on behalf of
2025:JHHC:28873
appellant / defendants, the first appellate court has
formulated sole point for consideration as to whether
court below has appreciated evidence, pleading and
other materials and arrived at right decision or not?
Whether the judgment of the court below is fit to be
upheld or set aside?
7. The learned appellate court has also re-appreciated
the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by
the parties. The appellate court also recorded findings
that the plaintiffs have acquired right, title and
interest over the suit property through the sale deed
dated 16.05.1943 and also possession of the same
and also concluded that there is no error of law in the
judgment and decree passed by the learned trial
court. Accordingly, dismissed the appeal.
8. This second appeal preferred by defendants /
appellants has been admitted vide order dated
08.05.2009 on following substantial question of law:-
(i) Whether the raiyat has got right to sell
Mundari Khunt Kattidari Tenancy in view of
Section 240 of the C.N.T. Act?
9. Before imparting the judgment on the above
substantial question of law, the provisions of Section
240 and 242 of the C.N.T. Act is extracted hereunder:-
2025:JHHC:28873
240. Restrictions on transfer of Mundari khunt-
kattidari tenancies - (1) No Mundari-khunt-kattidari
tenancy or portion thereof shall be transferable by
sale, whether in execution decree or order of a Court
or otherwise :
Provided that, when a decree or order has been
made by any Court for the sale of any such tenancy or
portion thereof, in satisfaction of a debt due under a
mortgage (other than a usufructuary mortgage) which
was registered before the commencement of the Chota
Nagpur Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1903 [(Ben. Act 5
of 1903)], the sale may be made with the previous
sanction of the Deputy Commissioner.
(2)If the Deputy Commissioner refuses to
sanction the sale of any such tenancy or portion
thereof under the proviso to sub-section (1), he shall
attach the land and make such arrangements as he
may consider suitable for liquidating the debt.
(3)No mortgage of a Mundari khunt-kattidari
tenancy or any portion thereof shall be valid, except a
bhugut bandha mortgage for a period, expressed or
implied, which does not exceed or cannot in any
possible event exceed seven years :
[Provided that, a Mundari Khunt Kattidar tenant
may transfer by simple mortgage his right in this
tenancy or any portion thereof with a view to raising
loan for agricultural purpose to a society or bank
registered or deemed to be registered under the 'Bihar
and Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1935 (Bihar
and Orissa Act VI of 1935) or a company or
Corporation owned by or in which not less than fifty
one per cent of the share capital is held by the State
Government or the Central Government or partly by
the State Government or partly by the Central
Government and which has been set up with a view to
providing agricultural credit to cultivators.]
(4)No lease of a 'Mundari Khunt kattidari'
tenancy or any portion thereof shall be valid, except a
lease of one or other of the following kinds, namely :-
(a) mukarrari leases' of uncultivated land, when
granted to a Mundari or a group of Mundaris for
the purposes of enabling the lessees or the male
members of their families to bring suitable
portions of the land under cultivation;
(b)leases of uncultivated land, when granted to a
'Mundari' cultivator to enable him to cultivate
the land as a Raiyat.
Explanation. - The expression "uncultivated land" as
used in this sub-section, includes land which, though
formerly cultivated, is not, at the time the lease is
granted, either under cultivation or in the occupation
of the lessee for purposes of cultivation.
2025:JHHC:28873
(5)Where a 'Mundari khunt-kattidari' tenancy is
held by the group of 'Mundari khunt-kattidars' no
bhugut bandha mortgage or 'mukarrari' lease of the
tenancy or any portion thereof shall be valid, unless it
is made with the consent of all the 'Mundari
Khuntkattidars'.
(6)No transfer of a 'Mundari khuntkattidar'
tenancy or any portion thereof, by any contract or
agreement made otherwise than as provided in the
foregoing subsections shall be valid; and no such
contract or agreement shall be registered.
(7)Nothing in the foregoing sub-section shall
affect any sale or, except as declared in the Proviso to
sub-section (1), any mortgage or any lease, made
before the commencement of the Chota Nagpur
Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1903 [(Bengal Act 5 of
1903).]
242. Ejectment of persons unlawfully obtaining
possession of such tenancies - If any person obtains
possession of a 'Mundari-khunt-kattidari tenancy or
any portion thereof in contravention of the provision
of Section 240, the Deputy Commissioner may eject
him therefrom. and if the tenancy was, before such
possession was obtained entered as a 'Mundari
khunt-kattidari tenancy in a record-of-rights finally
published under the Act or under any law in force
before the commencement of this Act, no suit shall be
maintainable in any Court in respect of such
ejectment; but an appeal shall lie as provided in
Chapter XVI.
10. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that
in view of restrictions on transfer of Mundari Khunt
Kattidari Tenancy under Section 240 of the C.N.T.
Act, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the
courts below are not legally sustainable. The Sale
Deed (Exhibit-2) relied upon by the plaintiffs is void
ab initio, which convey no right, title and interest to
the plaintiffs over the suit land. The registered deed of
surrender of tenancy by the wife of Bigal Singh
Munda has to be considered valid, effective and
2025:JHHC:28873
conferring title to the defendants. It is further argued
that the learned trial court failed to consider that the
plaintiffs themselves have filed application for
restoration of possession under Section 71 (A) of the
C.N.T. Act and lost up to appellate stage. Therefore,
the finding of possession of the plaintiff over the suit
property by the court below is absolutely beyond the
evidence on record and perverse.
11. It is further submitted that the validity of sale deed
relied upon by the plaintiffs, which is executed in
contravention of the provisions of law and being void
ab initio can be challenged at any time even in
absence of any pleadings. It is further submitted that
under the C.N.T. Act, Section 240 to 242, the
jurisdiction of Civil Court has also been barred.
Therefore, the impugned judgment and decree are
liable to be set aside, allowing this appeal.
12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondents has submitted that there is no pleading
in the written statement of the defendants /
appellants that the sale deed relied upon by the
plaintiffs is in contravention of provisions of Section
240 of the C.N.T. Act. The provision of Section 240 of
the C.N.T. Act is not applicable in this case.
Admittedly, Bigal Singh Munda, the recorded tenant
2025:JHHC:28873
in Khatian and in revisional survey also name of
purchaser from Bigal Singh Munda is shown in
column of possession. The entries in the revenue
records of rights have never been challenged by the
defendants. There is concurrent finding of both the
courts below in favour of plaintiffs / respondents.
There is no legal force in the argument of learned
counsel for the appellants and no merits in this
appeal, which is fit to be dismissed.
13. In the instant case, there is no doubt, rather admitted
position that plaintiffs have purchased the landed
property from the settled Mundari Khunt Kattidari
Tenant and in para-3 of plaint the plaintiffs have
asserted that the defendants are Mundari Khunt
Kattidari landlords of the same village, who realize
rent from the Mundari Khunt Kattidari Tenant, which
was admitted by defendants in para-10 of their
written statement. The specific case of plaintiffs is
that the suit property was purchased from the settled
Mundari Khunt Kattidari Tenant Bigal Singh Munda
vide Sale Deed dated 16.05.1943. On the other hand,
the case of defendants is based upon registered
surrender deed executed by wife of said Bigal Singh
Munda dated 11.08.1947.
14. In this regard, law is settled as per provisions of
Section 240 and 242 of the C.N.T. Act that there are
2025:JHHC:28873
restrictions on transfer of Mundari Khunt Kattidari
Tenancy and there is no limitation for ejectment of
person unlawfully obtained possession of such
tenancy. Since the matter involved in this case is
purely question of law, it does not require any
pleading of the parties to the effect. It is settled
principles of pleadings that it must contain concise
facts only and not the law. Therefore, question of law
can be agitated at any stage of proceeding. Therefore,
the main objection of respondents / plaintiffs that the
appellants / defendants have raised restrictions on
transfer for the first time in the second appeal, which
should not be entertained, cannot be accepted.
15. The moot question arises to be considered for
answering the aforesaid substantial question of law,
that whether the transfer of the suit property through
the registered sale deed allegedly executed by Bigal
Singh Munda in favour of plaintiffs of this case
confers any right, title, interest to the plaintiffs in the
eyes of law?
16. Before going to answer this question, it is to mention
here, the object of Chapter-XVII of the C.N.T. Act,
1908.
Chapter-XVIII of the Act envisages a special
provision with respect to Mundari khunt kattidari and
2025:JHHC:28873
the object behind the special legislation is to protect
such people from dispossession of their land. The
objects are; (i) to prohibit sale; (ii) to stop all forms of
mortgage save that known as "bhughut bundha" and
thereby present these savages becoming the serfs of
money lender; (iii) to follow recognized custom and
allow certain forms of transfer to other Mundaris; (iv)
to invest the Deputy Commissioner with power to give
effect to this prohibition of sale and certain
restrictions on transfer (v) to provide for the
realization of arrears of rent, (vi) to secure the finality
of the record of right. It is the objective view that
Section 240 of the Act restricts the transfer of
Mundari khunt kattidari tenancies except those
provided in clause (4) of Section 240 of the Act.
17. In the case of Sandhu Munda Vs. State of
Jharkhand 2009 (1) JCR 202 (Jhr.), it has been held
that the nature of land as Mundari Khunt Katti for
the purpose of imposing restrictions on transfer, there
was concurrent finding of the courts below after
perusal of khewats that the land was Mundari Khunt
Katti. Therefore, the same was based on record as
such, any transfer of such land made in contravention
of provision of Section 240 of the C.N.T. Act, does not
provide any right, title, interest on account of such
2025:JHHC:28873
sell. It is also held that such tenancy is not
transferable by a sell. Possession claimed on the basis
of settlement by sada deed or by registered sale deed,
comes within the mischief of Section 240 of the C.N.T.
Act.
18. In the case of Phago Mahto & Others Vs.
Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division and
Others, 1986 BLT (Rep) 173; 1987 PLJR (NOC) 69,
it has been held that no time limit has been
prescribed for such ejectment from Mundrai Khunt
Kattidar tenancy. On a plain reading of the provisions
of Section 242 of the C.N.T. Act, it appears that no
time limit has been prescribed for ejectment of such
persons unlawfully obtaining possession of a
"Mundari-Khunt-Kattidar" tenancy in contravention of
provisions of Section 240 of the C.N.T. Act. In
accordance with the said provision, in fact, no suit
shall be maintainable in any court in respect of such
ejectment, but an appeal would lie as provided in
Chapter XVI, that the transfer of land in question in
the present case was in contravention of Section 240
of the C.N.T. Act. The petitioners could not prove in
the court below the exact date of their possession.
19. In view of aforesaid discussion and reasons and
keeping in mind the settled principles of law, I find
2025:JHHC:28873
that admittedly the suit land stood Mundari Khunt-
Kattidari land under the revenue records, the sale
deed executed by Khunt Kattidar tenant namely, Bigal
Singh Munda in favour of ancestor of the plaintiffs is
in clear cut violation of provisions of Section 240 of
the C.N.T. Act. The effect of such transfer has also
been provided in Section 240 (6) of the C.N.T., which
mandates that no transfer of Mundari-Khunt-
Kattidari tenancy or any portion thereof, by any
contract or agreement made otherwise than as
provided in the foregoing sub-sections shall be valid;
and no such contract or agreement shall be
registered. Therefore, the very registration of such
transfer is also barred by law. Therefore, no right, title
and interest can be acquired through such sell, which
has been prohibited under law and there is no
limitation for ejectment of such purchaser.
20. Accordingly, I find merits in this appeal. The
impugned judgment and decree passed by learned
trial court as well as first appellate court suffer from
perversity and based on flagrant ignorance of law.
Therefore, the decree passed by both the courts below
is hereby set aside and the suit of the plaintiffs stand
dismissed.
21. Accordingly, the instant second appeal is allowed.
2025:JHHC:28873
22. In the circumstances, both parties shall bear their
own cost.
23. Pending I.A., if any, stand disposed of.
24. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court
record be sent back to the court concerned for
information and needful.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated, the 18 t h September, 2025.
Sunil / A.F.R.
