Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.
Sumitra Kunwar and ors – Appellants
Versus
Uday Nath Choudhry - Respondent
Second Appeal No.92 of 1990(R)
Decided On : 13-06-2024
RECLAMATION - PROPERTY DISPUTE - C.N.T. Act, 1908, Section 64; Cr.P.C. Section 145; Specific Relief Act, Section 34 - The court discussed the provisions of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, particularly Section 64, which allows reclamation of land by cultivators or landless laborers with the landlord's consent. The court emphasized the importance of documentary evidence to support claims of possession and reclamation. It also highlighted that findings from criminal proceedings under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. are not binding on civil courts, and the trial court's findings regarding possession were upheld as they were based on a preponderance of evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs, who are brothers and their relatives, filed a suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession over 2.79 acres of land in Purnadih, claiming they reclaimed the land after obtaining permission from the ex-landlord. The defendant contested the claim, asserting that he had settled the land with the ex-landlord and had been in possession for over 12 years.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that they had reclaimed the land and were in possession. The first appellate court reversed this decision, citing lack of evidence for landlord consent and the plaintiffs' failure to prove continuous possession. However, the second appeal reinstated the trial court's findings, emphasizing the importance of documentary evidence and the non-binding nature of the criminal court's findings on civil matters.
Issues: 1. Did the plaintiffs reclaim the land and acquire title? 2. Did the defendant obtain settlement from the ex-landlord? 3. Was the suit barred under the Specific Relief Act?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that reclamation rights under the C.N.T. Act require evidence of landlord consent, and that possession established through reclamation is valid against all but the rightful owner. The appellate court's reliance on the criminal court's findings was deemed erroneous, as such findings are not conclusive in civil disputes.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the judgment of the first appellate court was set aside, and the trial court's decree in favor of the plaintiffs was restored.
JUDGMENT :
Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.
1. This second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs/appellants against the judgment of reversal passed in Title Appeal No.35 of 1989.
2. Plaintiff filed suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession over the suit land measuring 2.79 acres appertaining to Khata No.81, Plot No.308, and 310 of village Purnadih, District Palamu fully detailed in Schedule A, B and C of the plaint.
3. The case of the plaintiffs is that plaintiff nos.1 and 2 are brothers and their father Lochan Choudhary was recorded raiyat of village Rajderwa and Purnadih. Plaintiff no.3-Rambrichh Choudhary is the Mama of plaintiff nos.1 and 2 who live at village Rajderwa, plaintiff no.4 is father of plaintiff nos.5 and 6 and they are joint. Plaintiff no.4 and 6 hold dar-raiyati land at Village Rajderwa recorded in the name of Ramdhari Manjhi, who is father of Plaintiff no.4. After the death of Ramdhari Manjhi, Plaintiff no.4 purchased Raiyati interest appertaining to the land of Khata No.8 of Rajderwa through registered sale deed dated 25.03.1947. Defendant Ramdeo Choudhary had no raiyati land in village Khamdih or at village Purnadih and they were not having residential house in Purnadih.
4. It is further averred that the residential house of the Plaintiff is situated at Purnadih which is south of village Rajderwa. The land in suit is situated to the West of village Purnadih. All the Plaintiffs have their separate land and the details of land in suit holds separately by them. Plaintiff nos.1 and 2 claims Schedule A land, plaintiff no.3 claims Schedule B land and plaintiff no.4 claims Schedule C land.
5. During last cadastral survey, Gairmazarua Khata No.81 of village Purandih was recorded under Khewat No.6 i.e. Shamilat Malikana and within this Khata No.81, Plot No.308, measuring an area 0.89 acres and Plot No.310 measuring 2.90 acres were recorded as Partigarha and Partikadim respectively.
6. It is further pleaded that Rambrichh Choudhary (Plaintiff no.3) was living with Plaintiff No.1 and 2 to look after their affairs at Rajderwa where the suit land is situated.
7. Plaintiff nos.1 and 2 with Plaintiff no.3 reclaimed 10 decimals of Plot No.308 and 58 decimals of Plot No.310, about 35 years back as fully detained in Schedule A of the Plaint. Similarly Plaintiff No.3 reclaimed 1.11 acres out of Plot No.310 as detailed in Schedule B, Plaintiff no.4 reclaimed 10 decimals out of Plot No.308 and 90 decimals in of Plot No.310 as detailed in Schedule C.
8. One Jhawal Choudhary also reclaimed 69 decimals of Plot No.308 and 31 decimals in Plot No.310 and he is in possession and paying rent to the state of Bihar. He is related to the Defendants and there was no land left for reclamation in these two plots.
9. Plaintiff no.4 has raiyati lands in both villages and has also purchased land through registered sale deed on 26.02.1966 at village Purnadih and Rajderwa.
10. The defendant filed a petition for settlement of same portion of Plot Nos.308 and 310, but the claim of defendant was rejected on 25.03.1960 in Case No.VIII/2 of 1955-56 holding that Defendant was not in possession of the land.
11. Plaintiff nos. 1, 3 and 4 had also filed petition for settlement of land which was reclaimed by them in Settlement Case No.44 of 1962-63 in the Court of Circle Officer, Sadar, Daltonganj. The Circle Officer found possession of the plaintiffs and recommended for settlement to the DCLR, Sadar who also recommended to the SDO, Sadar for approving the settlement in favour of the plaintiffs. SDO (Sadar) kept the matter pending for considerable period and on 27.01.1978 directed the DCLR to make spot enquiry, but the said order had not been complied.
12. Taking advantage of this, a proceeding under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. was initiated in respect of portion of Plot No.308 and 310 against Plaintiff by the Defendant vide Misc. Case No.1062 of 1978, in which, the defendant falsely claimed Raiyati settlement from Mukund Ali, although the property o
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.
Adverse Possession – Necessary ingredients to constitute adverse possession must be proved in order to perfect title over land.
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 main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of documents and the application of the principle of adverse possession in property disputes.
Adverse Possession – When a possession is sought on the ground of Sada-deed of Dar Raiyat, law of adverse possession is not available.
The record of rights (Khatian) is presumptive evidence of ownership, establishing Rayati rights until disproved, leading to recovery of possession.
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
