Back
2019 Supreme(Jhk) 500
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.
Anand Kumar Singh & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand & Ors. - Respondents
Second Appeal No. 90 of 2011
Decided On : 22-01-2019
For the Appellant :Mr. Ayush Aditya, Advocate.
Headnote:
Civil Procedure Code,1950 - Order 7 - Rule 11 - Bihar Lands Reform Act, 1950 - Section 4(g) - Reliefs As Claim – Quash - Specific case plaintiffs was that in end century suit lands were highly encumbered and by government no litigation came under encumbered estate and one was appointed as Manager - For agricultural purposes traces of uncultivated lands were settled by registered patter with fixed rents came in possession of property and became owner of suit land - In meantime cadastral survey started and behinds pond were allotted Plot within Girded Thana - Showing above plots in possession Chandra occupancy rayed rent fixed by pastas – Held, Court also finds that all evidences were considered by both learned courts below who returned concurrent finding that on strength of registered patter Chandra never acquired any status or status of occupancy and also held that no amount of oral evidence can take precedence over documentary evidence - In such circumstances this Court does not find any question of law much less any substantial question of law involved in this case calling for admission of this Second Appeal - So far as Judgment of Humble Supreme Court which has been relied upon by appellants is concerned this court finds that same has no bearing in matters entire claim appellants is on basis of registered patter it is not case appellants that registered patter has not been properly considered by courts below - This court is of considered view that even if Exhibit concerned appellants do not have case - Further admittedly Exhibit were considered by both courts below - Judgment of Humble Patna High Court reported is concerned same also does not help appellants in any manner as in said case party was claiming right title interest and possession over property by virtue of unregistered lease - It was held that although unregistered lease cannot be admissible in evidence but can certainly be used for purpose of proving nature of possession - Herein instant case claim Plaintiff was on basis of registered accordingly right title and interest will certainly flow from right conferred by registered patter and no other documents or evidences can supplement such right of plaintiffs - Appeal dismissed
ORDER :
1. Heard Mr. Ayush Aditya, counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants.
2. This Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 03.08.2011, decree signed on 17.08.2011 by the learned District Judge, in Title Appeal No. 18 of 2010, dismissing the appeal and conforming the judgment dated 31.03.2010 and Decree dated 20.04.2010 passed by learned Subordinate Judge-IV, Giridih in Title Suit No. 218 of 1993.
3. The plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration of the occupancy raiyati right over the suit property described in Schedule A & B of the plaint and in case of dispossession during the pendency of the suit Khas possession of the suit property.
4. The specific case of the plaintiffs was that in the end of 19th century, the suit lands were highly encumbered and by government no litigation came under encumbered estate and one Babu Krishan Chandra Ghosh was appointed as Manager. For agricultural and piscicultural purposes tracs of uncultivated lands were setteled by registered patta dated 26.07.1897 with fixed rents (Ext 1) to Babu Sharat Chandra Tah, who came in possession of the property and became owner of the suit land. In the meantime, the cadastral survey started and bhinds and a pond were allotted Plot No.135, 139 and 140 within Khata No. 81, mauja-Giridih, Thana-229, P.S. Giridih Pargana, District- Hazaribagh (now Giridih) showing the above plots in possession of Babu Sharat Chandra Tah as Mokararri-dar (occupancy raiyat) rent fixed by pattas.
5. After vesting of the Jamabandi interest under the provisions of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, a return was filed by the ex-landlord in which Schedule-A besides others were shown in the possession of Santosh Kumar Tah defendant of Babu Sharat Chandra Tah as a raiyat. Accordingly, Jamabandi was created in the name of Santosh Kumar Tah and the State Government started realizing rent and granted rent receipt as settllee from ex-intermediary. Santosh Kumar Tah during his lifetime, sold various portions of land and after his death Amiya Kumar Tah also exercise his rights and transferred property to different persons. So far as Schedule-A property is concerned, the same were sole by Amiya Kumar Tah in favour of the plaintiffs by virtue of registered sale deed dated 11.03.1976. The specific case of the plaintiffs was that the plaintiffs being a purchaser from a settllee from the ex-intermediary, became a raiyat in respect of the Schedule-A property and that the name of the plaintiffs was also mutated by the order dated 30.09.1985 and the rent was paid to the State till 1993-94.
6. However, a proceeding under Section 4(g) of Bihar Lands Reform Act, 1950 was initiated by Additional Collector, Giridih bearing No. 01 of 1976-77, which was ultimately dropped and subsequently an order dated 24.05.1993 was passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih for removal of enforcement over the scheduled-A properties at the instance of defendant no. 4. Initially a writ petition was filed before the High Court which was numbered as C.W.J.C. No. 1863 of 1993 (R). The Hon’ble High Court by order dated 11.08.1993 quashed the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih, in so far as the same related to plot no. 135 and 140 with an observation that if the defendant state is not satisfied it may institute a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession, if they so desire. However, in the meantime, the defendants started disturbing the possession of the plaintiffs which ultimately led to filing of the title suit before the trial court. Defendant nos. 1 to 3 were the authorities of the State who filed their written statement and contended the suit. Defendant no. 4 also filed a written statement contending that the tank and the bhind were all used by the general public and therefore the plaintiffs cannot have any exclusive right, title and interest over the same.
7. The learned trial Court framed the following issues for consideration:-
(i) Whether the suit is maintainable?
(ii) Whether plaintiffs h
