[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Hari Mohan Sao @ Hari Mohan Sahu vs Bangla Sao on 8 April, 2026
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
( 2026:JHHC:10476)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Second Appeal No. 288 of 2007
1. Hari Mohan Sao @ Hari Mohan Sahu, son of Harakh Sahu
2. Mahali Sao @ Mahali Sahu, son of Budhu Sao
3. Khurt Sao @ Khurtu Sahu, son of Sudhu Sao
4. Bhikhnu Sao @ Bhikhnu Sahu, son of Lachhu Sao
5. Domra Sao @ Domra Sahu son of Kamal Sao
All resident of village Kulabira, P.O. and P.S. Gumla, District-Gumla
......Appellants
Versus
1. Bangla Sao, son of Madho Sao, resident of village Kulabira, P.S. and
District Gumla (substituted Defendant No.1)
2. Bimla Devi wife of Basant Sahu
3. Kanchan Kumari daughter of Late basant Sahu
4. Ramesh Sao, son of sular Sao
All residents of village Kulabira, P.O. and P.S. Gumla, District Gumla
5. Peo Devi wife of Madhu Devi resident of village Kulabira, P.O and P.S.
Gumla, District-Gumla
6. Saro Devi wife of Ganesh Sao, resident of village Sagra, P.O. and P.S.
Sisai, District-Gumla
7. Nashia Devi wife of not known resident of village Dash Nagar, P.S.
Bikramjodpur, District Ayodhya.
................ Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---------
For the Appellants : Mr. Arun Kumar. Advocate
For the Respondents :
13/Dated: 08/04/2026
Heard Mr. Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants.
2. This second appeal has been filed being aggrieved and dissatisfied
with judgment and decree dated 26.09.2007 (Decree sealed and signed on
06.10.2007) passed by Shri Ramesh Kumar Srivastava, the learned Additional
District Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Gumla in Title Appeal No. 22/1999
whereby the Title Appeal has been dismissed with cost confirming the
judgment and decree dated 16.06.1999 (Decree sealed and signed on
01.07.1999) passed by learned Munsif, Gumla in Title Suit No. 64 of 1988.
3. As recorded in judgment of learned court the case of the plaintiffs was
that the Plaintiffs/Appellant have instituted the Title Suit No. 64 of 1988 stating
therein that lands pertaining to Khata No.04 having its plot Nos. 3102, 3103
and 3777 of village KULABIRA within P.S. & Distt. Gumla was recorded in the
( 2026:JHHC:10476)
name of Aklu Teli son of Charku Teli. The said Aklu Teli in stead of village
Kulabira used to reside at village -Kasira of the same police station. A
genealogy therefore was provided in para 3 of the plaint showing defendant
No.1 Pio Devi to be the daughter of Aklu Teli. The plaintiffs and proforma
defendants in view of the genealogy had claimed themselves to be the heirs
and successor of brothers of Charku Teli. It is alleged that the suit lands after
deported by Aklu Teli to village Kasira were being cultivated by the ancestors of
the plaintiffs and proforma defendants who were still living at village Kulabira
where the property situate. The plaint goes to show further that Aklu Teli was
being given some products namely paddy etc. annually, It is further alleged
that Aklu Teli died two years after R.S. operation, leaving behind his daughter
Pio Devi who is defendant No. 1. Further case of the plaintiffs is that after
death of Aklu Teli, the suit-property were inherited by the ancestors of the
plaintiffs and proforma defendants and it were they who even performed the
marriage of Pio Devi to Mahadeo Sao of their village Kulabira. She allegedly
after her marriage started living with her husband. Further claim of the
plaintiffs is that Aklu Teli died before passing of Hindu Law hence his daughter
had no right and title over the suit-land. They also denied the possession of Pio
Devi over suit-property. It is further alleged that Pio Devi having no title over
subject matter sold it to Seva Sao, Bahura Sao, Bodhan Sao through registered
sale-deed dated 20.05.1957 on consideration amount of only Rs. 1500/-. It is
added further that when the purchasers afore-named had realized their mistake
that Pio Devi in want of title or interests over the suit-land sold the same, they
immediately surrendered and made over the subject matter in favour of plaintiff
and their ancestors and since then the plaintiffs were in peaceful possession on
it. It is admitted by the plaint that Pio Devi vide mutation case No. 65/1982-83
got the land mutated from the court of C.O., Gumla in her favour and she in
revision from the court of Additional Collector vide case No.9/1986-87 has
( 2026:JHHC:10476)
succeeded in setting aside the order passed in appeal by D. C. L. R., Gumla
who in its order had set aside the order of mutation passed in favour of Pio
Devi by C.O., Gumla. The plaintiffs as such has assailed the revision order
passed in respect of mutation by which Additional Collector, Gumla had set
aside the order of appellate court of D.C.L.R. As such on the basis of their
pleadings plaintiffs prayed relief for declaring order dated 27.02.1987 as illegal
and void passed in mutation proceeding by Addl. Collector, Gumla. Furthermore
they prayed for grant of permanent injunction restraining Pio Devi from the
subject matter. A prayer for declaration of possession and title of the plaintiffs
and proforma defendants also were taken.
4. The case of the defendants is that defendant as recorded in the
judgment of the learned court that plaintiffs never were in possession of the
suit property. Further case is that her father Aklu Sao died in year, 1945-46
leaving behind his widow Pano Kuar and she as being daughter of that Aklu Sao
had succeeded the suit-land as such. It was further stated that Aklu Sao, her
father in the life time of his father Charku Sao was living separately from his
remaining brothers. He was separate in cultivation and dealing separately the
lands in possession including suit property. As such the plea of property being
in jointness is vehemently denied by her. The land in question was claimed to
be exclusive property of her father Aklu Sao which has been recorded as
Kaiyami land in revisional survey. Smt. Pano Kuar, the widow of Aklu Sao had
been murdered in year, 1952-53 and prior to her death a proceeding under
Section 145 of the Criminal procedure Code in respect of lands of R.S, Khata
No.04 having its plot No.3777 of area 0.80 acres in which in place of her
deceased mother, defendant Pio Devi and her Son Bangla Sao were substituted
as Ist party while some of the plaintiffs and proforma defendants were IInd
party. The said proceeding on 11.05.1953 has been decided in favour of
plaintiff on contest declaring her possession over land in dispute. The plaintiffs
( 2026:JHHC:10476)
and proforma defendants against that very order passed in proceeding under
Section 145 Cr.P. C. did not prefer to file suit in a competent Civil Court and as
such impliedly had admitted her possession over subject matter. Further case of
the defendant before the lower court was that she at the time of vesting of
Zamindari in year, 1956 still was in possession over the subject matter and
thereafter by virtue of Provisions of Bihar Land Reforms Act she was availing
possession on it peacefully. By refuting contents in paras 788 of the plaint it is
revealed in the written statement that her parents had no male issue hence
after marriage she in their house at village Kulabira was looking after the works
and nurturing them. Moreover, a criminal case for the offence under Section
379 in year, 1951 as well as the offence of criminal assault punishable under
Sections 148, 323 & 324 were taken place between the parties and the same
on established possession proved by her on property concerned were decided
against the plaintiffs and in her favour. In her written statement she further
denied execution of any sale-deed allegedly in favour of Seva Sao and others
and also to the facts of surrender by them in favour of plaintiffs and proforma
defendants. She as such has ruled out existence of sale-deed and alleged it to
be concocted story for filing of the suit.
5. After appreciating the exhibits and evidences the learned Munsif
has decided the said Title Suit No. 64/1988 by judgment dated 16.06.1999
whereby he has bene pleased to dismiss the said suit with cost.
6. Aggrieved with that the appellants/plaintiffs have preferred Title
Appeal No. 22 of 1999 which was decided by the Additional District Judge, Fast
Track Court No. 1, Gumla by judgment dated 26.09.2007 in which he has been
pleased to dismiss the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the learned trial
court.
7. Mr. Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants submits that
the second appeal is having substantial question of law and in view of that this
( 2026:JHHC:10476)
appeal may kindly be admitted. He further submits that both the learned courts
in deciding the said suit and appeal have erred in not considering the sale deed
dated 20.05.1957 which was in favour of the Seva Rao and others executed
by defendant no. 1. He further submits that this is substantial question of law
and in view of that this second appeal may kindly be admitted.
8. On the basis of above pleadings the learned trial court for
deciding the Title Suit No. 64/1988 has framed seven issues. Issue No. V was
with regard to sale deed allegedly executed by Pio Devi in favour of Seva Sao
and others dated 20.05.1957. For deciding the said issue the learned First
Court has found that the plaintiffs have asserted that on 20.05.1957 Pio Devi
has executed a sale deed in favour of Seva Sao and other the sons of Mahadeo
Sao. After execution of sale deed there remained no title and possession of
Pio Devi once the suit land was transferred. It was also alleged that when the
purchasers knew about that she had no title then they have surrendered the
land in favour of the plaintiffs. The learned trial Court in this background has
found that deed has not been acted upon. He has found that the version of the
defendant in this regard was that the plaintiffs never came in possession
even for a single day. The report of the expert was marked as Exhibit-8 and
the said report was found to be defective by the learned trial court. The
reasons have been provided that the photo was not brought on record and
photographer has not been examined. The report is based on report of these
persons but that fact has not been stated in Exhibit-8. Both the photographs
were not found to be equal. The learned trial court has found that signature
was only of Ranjana Kumari but Ext. 8 does not contain signature of deponent
and Deena Nath Thakur. There was no direct evidence regarding execution of
alleged sale deed. The learned trial court has found that in relief portion also
there was no relief regarding execution of that sale deed and defendant has
asserted that sale deed has been impersonated and on the basis of that deed
( 2026:JHHC:10476)
purchasers have not acquired title and possession over the land in suit and
there was no question of surrender in favour of plaintiffs. The learned trial
court has further found that the said alleged deed was illegal, invalid and in-
operative and not binding upon the defendant and accordingly, that issue was
decided against the plaintiffs. Thereafter the learned trial court has decided
further issues dismissing the suit by judgment dated 16.06.1999.
9. Aggrieved with the said judgment the Plaintiffs/Appellants
preferred Title Appeal No. 22 of 1999. In para 8 of the said judgment of the
learned appellate has framed the points to decide the said appeal.
10. The learned appellate court has found that the suit property
of Khata No. 4 appertaining to three plots mentioned in paras 1 and 2 of the
plaint factually was recorded in the name of Aklu Teli who admittedly was the
father of Pio Devi. The plaintiffs/appellants in support of being property in
jointness produced no documentary evidence therefore on the basis of oral
evidence that fact was to be find out. The learned appellate court has
appreciated the evidence of P.W.5 namely, Kutalu Sao and found that in para
10 on oath he has admitted the fact that Aklu Teli was living separately from his
remaining others and in para 12 this witness has made his ignorance about
any sale deed executed by Pio Devi allegedly in favour of Seva Sao and others.
11. The learned appellate court has further appreciated the evidence of
P.W.9, P.W. 10 and P.W. 14 and appreciating all the evidences of the aforesaid
P.Ws the learned appellate court has found that the factum of property in
jointness even was refuted by the witnesses appeared on behalf of plaintiffs.
The father of Pio Devi was recorded tenant of subject matter and he was living
separately from his rests brothers and they were therefore established well.
The villagers of the locality as that of the parties examined as D.Ws. 4 and 5
also have denied the existence of lands in dispute in jointness and in view of
that the learned appellate court has found that Aklu Teli who was the father of
( 2026:JHHC:10476)
Pio Devi, before his death was living separately and the property left by him
detailed in para-1 of the plaint was his own separate property and accordingly,
that point was decided against the plaintiffs/appellants and in favour of
respondent-defendant by the learned appellate court.
12. In view of above facts, the court finds that both the learned
courts on the point of sale deed for property appreciated the entire evidence
and thereafter have passed aforesaid judgements. There is no illegality in the
said judgments. Two courts concurrent findings are there. It is well settled
that in the second appeal the evidences are not required to be appreciated
and only on substantial question of law, the second appeal can be admitted. .
There is no perversity in the judgements of both the learned courts. No
substantial question of law is involved in this second appeal and sitting under
section 100 of the C.P.C., the High Court is not required to admit this second
appeal in absence of any substantial question of law and accordingly, this
second appeal is dismissed. Pending, I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Dt. 08.04.2026
Satyarthi/-A.F.R.
