Bharat Deo Singh vs Most. Pano Devi
2026 Latest Caselaw 3037 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Bharat Deo Singh vs Most. Pano Devi on 15 April, 2026

Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

                                                                        ( 2026:JHHC:10709 )




                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                           Second Appeal No. 51 of 2010
                 Bharat Deo Singh, son of Late Srinath Singh, resident of Village- Usku,
                 P.O. & P.S. Burmu, District- Ranchi               ... Appellant

                                         -Versus-

            1.   Most. Pano Devi, wife of Late Jaggu Oraon
            2.   Birsa Oraon
            3.   Bandhan Oraon @ Chanda Oraon, Nos. 2 and 3 sons of Late Janya
                 Oraon, Nos. 1 to 3 residents of Village Usku, P.O. & P.S. Burmu, District-
                 Ranchi
            4.   Ram Singh, son of Late Srinath Singh, resident of Village Usku, P.O. &
                 P.S. Burmu, District- Ranchi                        ... Respondents

                                           -----

            CORAM:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
                                           -----
            For the Appellant              : Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, Advocate
            For the Respondents            :
                                           -----

26/15.04.2026     Heard Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant.

2. This second appeal has been preferred being aggrieved and

dissatisfied with the judgment dated 04.09.2009 and decree signed on

14.09.2009 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, Fast

Track Court No.VI, Ranchi in Title Appeal No.136 of 2007 confirming the

judgment dated 10.10.2007 and decree signed on 27.11.2007 passed by the

learned Munsif, Ranchi in Title Suit No.84 of 1999.

3. Title Suit No.84 of 1999 was instituted by the plaintiff/respondents for

cancellation of sale-deed dated 07.01.1976 executed by defendant no.3 in

favour of defendant nos. 1 and 2 and to pass the decree not to effect the

title of the plaintiff on the basis of the said sale-deed. The said title suit

was decreed vide judgment dated 10.10.2007 and decree signed on

27.11.2007 passed by the learned Munsif, Ranchi on contest and the

-1- Second Appeal No. 51 of 2010 ( 2026:JHHC:10709 )

sale-deed dated 07.01.1976 executed by defendant no.3 in favour of

defendant nos.1 and 2 was declared null and void. Aggrieved with

that judgment, the defendant/ appellant preferred the appeal being

Title Appeal No.136 of 2007, which was decided by the learned Additional

Judicial Commissioner, Fast Track Court No.VI, Ranchi dismissing the said

appeal and affirmed the judgment of the learned Munsif, Ranchi vide

judgment dated 04.09.2009.

4. It transpires from the judgments of the learned Courts that the

plaintiff's case as disclosed in the plaint was as under:

The suit property described in the schedule as land situated at Mouja

Uska, P.S. Burmu, District- Ranchi measuring 0.73 decimals of plot

no.258 in Khata no.1 belonged to Kapil Singh and was auctioned in

connection with rent due and thereafter purchased by Debu Sahu as

an auction purchaser of the suit property in Rent Execution Case

No.13/35-36 and who thereafter inducted Makan Bharti as Raiyat

over it. The plaintiff had purchased the suit property from the said

Makan Bharti vide registered sale-deed no.10874 dated 04.08.1973

by paying valuable consideration of Rs.2,000/- to the vendor to give

possession thereof to the plaintiff and the plaintiff having acquired

perfect title over the suit land is in cultivating possession of the same

since then. Defendant no.3 Baijnath Bharti cancelled the previous

sale-deed no.10874, dated 04.08.1973 vide cancellation deed no.231

dated 07.01.1976 thereafter sold the suit property to defendant nos.

1 and 2 on the same day by virtue of registered sale-deed no.231

dated 07.01.1976 for a consideration amount of Rs.1,000/-.

                                -2-                         Second Appeal No. 51 of 2010
                                                    ( 2026:JHHC:10709 )

Subsequent sale-deed no.231 is illegal, void and inoperative in law

and without jurisdiction and is not binding upon the plaintiff and

the defendant nos. 1 and 2 have got no perfect title ownership,

they could not come into physical possession of the suit property. The

original Raiyat Makan Bharti having remained in possession of the

suit property for 30 years and sold it to the plaintiff in the year

1973 and defendant no.3 has no right to cancel the sale-deed

no.10874 which was executed and registered by Makan Bharti, who

was real owner of the suit property. The plaintiff further

purchased the suit property got his name mutated in the office of

Circle Officer and has been paying rent to the State. The

plaintiff came to know about the sale of the suit property in 1986

when he was dispossessed by the defendant nos. 1 and 2 and

thereafter the plaintiff's son Bandhna Oraon instituted restoration

case against defendant nos. 1 and 2 in the court of Special

Regulation Officer, Ranchi which was registered as S.A.R. Case

No.153/87-88 and the learned officer passed an order for

restoration for the suit land and Dakhaldahani was also made in the

year 1993. Against that order, defendant nos. 1 and 2 preferred an

appeal in the court of Additional Collector, Ranchi which was

dismissed leading to the filing of Revision Case No.278/94 in the

Court of Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi. The

learned Commissioner allowed the revision setting aside the

order passed by the appellate court but observed that the order

passed by the Special Regulation Officer, Ranchi will stand. The

-3- Second Appeal No. 51 of 2010 ( 2026:JHHC:10709 )

plaintiff is still in physical possession over the suit land but

defendant nos. 1 and 2 have tried to disturb his possession. The

cause of action of the suit arose in 1996 when the plaintiff was

dispossessed by defendant nos. 1 and 2 and again 22.09.1998

when the restoration case was finally decided by the learned

Commissioner, South Chotnagpur, Ranchi and on subsequent dates.

The relief prayed for are decree for cancellation of the sale-deed

no.230 dated 07.01.1976, further prayed to declare the title of the

plaintiff on the basis of the said sale-deed decree holding the

sale-deed no.231, dated 07.01.1976 void inoperative in law and illegal

and also for declaring cancelled deed no.231 dated 07.01.1976 illegal

and void along with cost of the suit.

5. From the judgment of the learned Court, it transpires that the case of

the defendants was as under:

The defendants had filed their written statement and disclosed

therein that the suit is false, frivolous, vexatious and not maintainable

for want of cause of action. The suit is barred by limitation, adverse

possession, principle of waiver, estoppels, accusation under Section

34 of the Specific Relief Act and under Sections 139, 139A, 258 and

Section 71(a) of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act. The suit is grossly

undervalued and the court fees paid is not sufficient. The suit is

barred by principles of res-judicata in view of the fact that Bandhna

Oraon son of the plaintiff has lost the case in the revision no.278/94

passed by the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur, Ranchi which

became finally conclusive. It is incorrect to say that Debu Sahu

-4- Second Appeal No. 51 of 2010 ( 2026:JHHC:10709 )

inducted Makan Bharti as raiyat of the suit land and as a matter of

the fact Makan Bharti has acquired the property on 01.11.1998 and

after death of Makan Bharti, his grandson defendant no.3 came in

possession over the suit land by assertion of the right. Defendant

no.3 on account of his legal necessity sold the suit land to defendant

nos. 1 and 2 vide registered sale-deed dated 07.01.1976 for valuable

consideration and put them in possession thereof and they are

coming in possession from the date of purchase. They got their name

mutated in the office of the C.O., Burmu and have been regularly

paying the rent to the State. The defendant nos. 1 and 2 have

acquired absolutely an indefeasible title with respect to the suit land

and even if there is any defect in title the same has been

perfected by the remaining in possession continuously for more than

statutory period to the knowledge of the all concerned including

plaintiff and other defendants. Makan Bharti who is said to have sold

the suit land to the plaintiff and the same sale-deed dated 04.08.1973

through which plaintiff claimed to have purchased the suit land is

without consideration and void ab-initio. Plaintiff did not derive any

title by virtue of alleged purchased neither he came into

possession of the suit land. The alleged deed of sale was rightly

cancelled by Baijnath Bharti on 07.01.1976. Even during the current

survey of operation in the primary records of right with respect to the

suit land, defendant nos. 1 and 2 have been prepared and

published under Khata no.77(K), New plot no.287 area 35 decimals

and plot no.282 area 37 decimals. Defendant nos. 1 and 2 acquired

-5- Second Appeal No. 51 of 2010 ( 2026:JHHC:10709 )

the valid right and title by virtue of purchase by them against the

consideration and they are in continuous and uninterrupted

possession of the suit land since 07.01.1976. It is claimed that

Makan Bharti was not the real owner of the suit property and it was

the defendant no.2 who was real owner and was in exclusive

possession of it and has sold the same to defendant nos. 1 and 2

through registered sale deed dated 07.01.1976. The plaintiff

with malafide intention and fraud got the proceeding under Section

71A of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act initiated through his son

Bandhan Oraon against the defendant nos. 1 and 2. It is not true

that dakhaldahani was also made in the year 1993 as the plaintiff was

never in possession of the suit land. It is absolutely false and

mischievous to say that learned Commissioner did not interfere in the

order of Regulation Officer, Ranchi. A bare perusal of the order

would show that learned Commissioner set aside the order of both

the lower courts and allow the revision filed by defendant nos. 1 and

2. It is absolutely false that the plaintiff is still in physical

possession over the suit land and defendant nos. 1 and 2 had tried

to disturb their possession. The plaintiff is not entitled to any of the

relief claimed by them and the suit is liable to be dismissed with

compensatory cost.

6. The learned Munsif, Ranchi in deciding the said Title Suit No.84 of 1999

has framed 12 issues to decide the suit. Issue no.9 was with regard to the

legality of sale-deed dated 07.01.1976. The learned trial court has taken issue

nos. 9, 10 and 11 simultaneously as these issues were interlinked. The

-6- Second Appeal No. 51 of 2010 ( 2026:JHHC:10709 )

learned trial court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence led

by both the sides, has been pleased to hold that the said sale-deed was

already cancelled by way of filing an application before the registering

authority in the year 1973 and in view of the said fact, the learned trial court

has held that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property and answer

the said suit in favour of the plaintiff and other issues have also been decided

while appreciating the oral and documentary evidence and, thereafter, the

suit has been decreed vide judgment dated 10.10.2007 passed in Title Suit

No.84 of 1999.

7. Aggrieved with the said judgment, an appeal being Title Appeal No.136

of 2007 was preferred by the defendants/appellant, which has been dismissed

vide judgment dated 04.09.2009 by the learned Additional Judicial

Commissioner, Fast Track Court No.VI, Ranchi affirming the judgment of the

learned trial court.

8. Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant submits that

for cancellation of any deed, limitation is prescribed for three years and in

that view of the matter, this is the law point and on this law point, this appeal

may kindly be admitted.

9. The learned first appellate Court has found that in the said suit, the

plaintiff has also prayed for other reliefs, however, the suit has been decreed

only to the extent of holding that the sale-deed no.231 dated 07.01.1976

executed by defendant no.3 in favour of defendant nos. 1 and 2 is null and

void and other reliefs prayed by the plaintiff in the said suit was refused. The

learned first appellate Court has further found that defendant no.3-Baijnath

Bharti was projected as grandson of Makan Bharti by the defendant/appellant

-7- Second Appeal No. 51 of 2010 ( 2026:JHHC:10709 )

and that has not been objected by the plaintiff/respondent. Makan Bharti sold

the suit land to the plaintiff through registered sale-deed dated 04.08.1973

and further cancelled the same by defendant no.3 by virtue of registered sale-

deed dated 07.01.1976 and simultaneously the execution of the sale-deed of

the suit property by defendant no.3 in favour of defendant nos. 1 and 2 on

the same date was also admitted. The learned first appellate Court has also

found that although it was admitted that the plaintiff got to know about the

registered sale-deed dated 07.01.1976 only in the year 1986 when he was

dispossessed from the suit property by defendant nos. 1 and 2, however, the

said relief was proceeded before the S.A.R. Court and also its appellate and

revisional court under Section 71-A of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act in which

both parties to the lis actively participated and also stood admitted. The

learned first appellate Court has further found from the record that recovery

of the possession has not been prayed in the plaint and the plaintiff has not

been examined in person, though P.W.4 has been examined in the capacity

of Power of Attorney holder.

10. With regard to the argument advanced by Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha,

learned counsel for the appellant regarding the suit is barred by limitation

under Section 59 of the Limitation Act, was considered by the learned first

appellate Court in paragraph 10 of the said judgment. The learned first

appellate Court in deciding the said aspect has considered that the plaintiff

was dispossessed from the suit property in the year 1986 and came to know

about the execution of the sale-deed no. 231 dated 07.01.1976 and

cancellation of sale-deed no.10874 dated 07.01.1976 said to have been

executed by defendant no.3 Baijnath Bharti, he preferred S.A.R. Case

-8- Second Appeal No. 51 of 2010 ( 2026:JHHC:10709 )

No.153/86-88. Both the parties to the lis had contested that S.A.R. case and

after the case was decided in favour of the plaintiff, the defendants preferred

the said title appeal before the appellate authority, which was also dismissed.

The plaintiff has claimed that he handed over the possession of the suit land

in execution of the order of the S.A.R. Court. Thereafter, the appellant

preferred a revision and in that revision application, both the orders of the

learned trial court and first appellate court were set-aside and in view of that,

the learned first appellate Curt has found that it was admitted position of the

fact that between 1987 to 1998, both the parties to the lis were agitating

their grievance before another court of law and only after it was finally

decided that the forum did not had the requisite jurisdiction to entertain and

decide the lis and, therefore, the said suit was instituted. In view of that, the

learned Court has found relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court that the parties to the lis were pursuing the remedy elsewhere in

another court and immediately after final order was passed on 22.09.1998,

the said suit was instituted within ten months on 08.07.1999 and in view of

that, the learned first appellate Court has held that there is no illegality done

by the learned trial court in not dismissing the suit holding that the suit is not

barred under Section 59 of the Limitation Act.

11. This is only point argued for admission of the present second appeal

before this Court and that issue has been correctly appreciated by both the

Courts. There are concurrent findings of two Courts. No perversity has been

shown in course of argument by the learned counsel for the appellant for

admitting the present second appeal. It is well-settled that in the second

appeal, the High Court is not required to re-appreciate the evidences and only

-9- Second Appeal No. 51 of 2010 ( 2026:JHHC:10709 )

on the point of substantial question of law, the second appeal can be

admitted. The issue which has been argued on behalf of the appellant for

admitting this second appeal, both the learned Courts have already decided

the said issue.

12. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, this Court finds that

there is no substantial question of law involved in this second appeal and, as

such, this second appeal is, hereby, dismissed.

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

Dated: 15th April, 2026 Ajay/ A.F.R.

Uploaded on 17th April, 2026

-10- Second Appeal No. 51 of 2010