Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Kulwa Devi - Appellant
Versus
Bishwanath Singh – Respondent
Second Appeal No. 163 of 2006
Decided on : 28-07-2023
Possession - Bihar Land Reforms Act - Ext.9, 10, 11 - The court discussed the possession of the land in question and the settlement ordered in favor of the plaintiffs, which was subsequently stayed. The court found that the plaintiffs were in possession and the settlement was ordered in their favor, but the same was subsequently stayed. The court also considered the documents related to the possession of the defendants/respondents and found that they are in possession of the disputed land. The court found that the finding of the learned trial court is perverse.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants filed a suit for declaration of land as occupancy raiyati land acquired by settlement and for confirmation of possession. The defendants challenged the suit, contending that the land was made cultivable by them and that the suit was not maintainable.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiffs were in possession and the settlement was ordered in their favor, but subsequently stayed. The court also found that the defendants/respondents are in possession of the disputed land. The court held that the finding of the learned trial court is perverse.
Issues: The main issues were whether the plaintiffs had subsisting title or any right and interest to possess the land in question and whether the defendants were in possession of the disputed land.
Ratio Decidendi: The person claiming right, title, and interest has the onus to prove the title by producing the necessary documents. The court considered the possession of both parties and found that the finding of the learned trial court was perverse.
Final Decision: The second appeal was dismissed, and consequently, Title Suit No.89 of 1988 was dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. Manjul Prasad, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Baban Prasad, Mr. Praveen Kumar Verma, Mr. Akhouri Prakhar Sinha and Mr. Arbind Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha assisted by Mr. K.K. Ambastha and Mr. Sudhansu Kumar Deo, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 24.03.2006 passed by the learned 4th Additional District Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in T.A. No.20 of 1999 setting aside the judgment and decree dated 15.04.1999 (decree sealed and signed on 17.05.1999) passed by the learned Sub-Judge No.1, Palamau at Daltonganj in Title Suit No.89/1988, the present second appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs/ respondents/ appellants.
3. Title Suit No.89/1988 was instituted by the appellants herein for declaration of land detailed in Schedule-B of the plaint, which are occupancy raiyati land of the plaintiffs, acquired by virtue of settlement and also for declaration that the orders of L.R.D.C. dated 22.09.1981 and order of C.O., Panki for staying the order dated 16.02.1981 passed in Misc. Case No.01/1977-78 are without jurisdiction and void and do not affect in any way the right, title, interest and possession of the plaintiffs/appellants over the suit land. The prayer was also made for confirmation of their possession over the suit land and if they are found out of possession, be put in possession by evicting defendant nos.2 to 9, who are respondents herein, through the process of the court.
4. The said suit was filed by the plaintiffs stating therein that the land under Khata no.72 Plot No.597, total area of 163.25 acres under Khewat no.5, Thana no.458 of village Dhuo P.S. Panki, District-Palamau was recorded as Gairmazarua Malik Jungle Jhari during the last cadestral survey. Plaintiff nos. 1 and 2, father of plaintiff nos. 3 to 6 (Dhanu Mahto) and father of plaintiff nos. 7 and 8 (Kanhai Mahto), Late Bisar Mahto and Harbansh Mahto were the settled raiyat of village Dhuo, P.S. Panki, District-Palamau having their occupancy right in 2.36 acres of land in plot no.597. There was a Partition Suit No.28/1923 in the court of the learned Sub-Judge, Palamau amongst the co-sharer landlords of the village in which Parmeshwar Dayal Singh, Nathuni Singh, Sardari Singh, Mahadeo Singh and Kashinath Singh, the ancestors of defendant nos. 2 to 9, were allotted a separate Takhta on an area of 39.36 acres delineated as plot no.597/B. The landlords and extensive Bakast land in several villages which were more than sufficient for their cultivation and, therefore, they could not have reclaimed the land which required clearing of bushes, levelling for bringing into cultivation which involved much manual labour and cost. As from the land, there was no income, they settled 10 acres of land out of the said Gairmazarua land allotted to them i.e. an area of 39.36 acres to the plaintiffs' or their ancestor by means of Sada Hukumnama dated 26.05.1944 followed by rent receipts confirming the settlement on payment of Rs.40/-as salami and it was agreed that the full rent of the land amounting to Rs.45/-will be payable after three years from the date of settlement and in the meantime, rent would be payable @ Rs.3/-per Bigha to the extent of the area of reclamation and the plaintiffs and their ancestors were inducted in possession of the land from the date of settlement. The description of the land was mentioned in Schedule-A of the plaint which was not under dispute. It was further stated that the plaintiffs and their ancestors cleared the bushes and thorns and levelled the land and constructed reservoir for collecting rainy water for irrigation or entire land and they reclimated the land in three years as Dhany and Tanr land by Korkar and, thereafter, the land became fertile. The plaintiffs and their ancestors further reclaimed the land in continuation with 10.00 acres of already settled land and they fix the rent and salami after comp
The settlement order, revenue records, and lack of evidence supporting adverse possession claims were crucial in establishing the plaintiffs' continuous possession and defeating the defendants' claim....
The BPPHT Act's provisions, particularly Section 18, bar civil suits challenging settlement orders unless fraud or jurisdictional issues are proven, emphasizing the finality of administrative decisio....
The court upheld the admissibility of historical tenancy documents under Section 90 of the Evidence Act, confirming the plaintiffs' rights over the land despite challenges regarding document validity....
Possession established through reclamation under the C.N.T. Act is valid if supported by evidence of landlord consent, and findings from criminal proceedings do not bind civil courts.
The plaintiffs failed to establish title and possession over the suit land, and the suit was invalid due to non-joinder of necessary parties.
Mere possession for a long time does not convert permissive possession into adverse possession. The burden of proof rests on the party claiming adverse possession, and unregistered documents may not ....
The court affirmed the principle that established boundaries take precedence over conflicting land titles, and concurrent factual findings by lower courts are upheld unless proven manifestly erroneou....
Adverse Possession – When a possession is sought on the ground of Sada-deed of Dar Raiyat, law of adverse possession is not available.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
