Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.
Bhim Mahto, son of late Dhani Mahto and ors. – Appellants
Versus
Dularchand Mahto, son of Etwari Mahto and ors. – Respondents
S.A. No.113 of 2020
Decided On : 08-08-2024
(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - Second appeal against judgment and decree of affirmance - Plaintiffs sought declaration of title and injunction over suit land - Courts found plaintiffs failed to establish title or maintainability of suit - Concurrent findings of fact upheld. (Paras 2, 11, 14, 18)
(B) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Suit barred by provisions of Specific Relief Act due to non-joinder of necessary parties and lack of evidence of title. (Paras 8, 11)
Facts of the case:
Plaintiffs filed suit for declaration of title over land, claiming settlement by General Manager of Wards & Encumbered Estate, while defendants claimed peaceful possession and settlement by state.
Findings of Court:
Both courts found plaintiffs failed to prove title and maintainability of suit, affirming dismissal.
Issues: Main issues included maintainability of suit, cause of action, and proof of title.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that the plaintiff must prove their title and that concurrent findings of fact by lower courts should not be interfered with unless perverse.
Result: Second appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
2. This second appeal has been preferred under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree of affirmance dated 20.01.2020 passed by the learned District Judge-I, Hazaribagh in Title Appeal No.10 of 2018 whereby and where under, the learned first appellate court has dismissed the appeal on contest.
3. The brief fact of the case is that the plaintiffs filed Title Suit No. 83 of 1991 with a prayer for declaration of title over the suit land, permanent injunction and consequential relief.
4. The case of the plaintiffs in brief is that the original plaintiff was married to Dhani Mahto who was hereditary settled raiyat of village- Bhelwara. The General Manager, Wards & Encumbered Estate, Hazaribagh of Sikari Estate granted a patta in the name of the original plaintiff in respect of gairmajaruwa khas land measuring 2.20 acres. The original plaintiff deposited rent under the said patta from 1934 to 1953. The original plaintiff with huge investment got 0.06 acres of plot no. 858 amalgamated with adjoining plot no. 831 which she purchased along with other lands through sale deed dated 23.01.1968. On 16.01.1961 the son of the original plaintiff noticed the defendants along with others in the eastern portion of the suit land. On being enquired they found that the defendants were trying to acquire the portion of the suit land forcibly. The original plaintiff through her son lodged a complaint on 18.01.1991 in the court of S.D.M., Hazaribagh for initiation of the proceeding upon which the proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. was initiated against the seven persons including the defendants. The S.D.M., Hazaribagh called for a report from the Circle Officer of Bishnugarh Circle and directed to maintain status quo. The S.D.M., Hazaribagh restrained both the parties from going upon the lands but in-spite of such order, the defendants constructed mud and khaprail (Tile Roofed) house over the said land. The proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. was disposed of on 22.06.1991. A petition was filed by the plaintiffs for converting the proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. into 145 Cr.P.C. The plaintiffs then filed the suit under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act, 1963.
5. The case of the defendants on the other hand is that the suit is not maintainable on various technical grounds. The defendants denied the case of the plaintiffs about settlement of the land in favour of the plaintiffs. The defendants pleaded that the land being gairmajaruwa khas land of ex-landlord after vesting of zamindari. The state government became the owner of the land and the defendants have been coming in peaceful possession of the suit measuring 1.90 acres prior to vesting of zamindari by oral permission of ex-landlord through their ancestors and the rest of the plots are under reserved forest and the defendants had two old mud house upon the western portion of the land, under their possession. Besides construction of the house, the defendants have planted bamboo trees in the land under their possession and also planted Mahuwa trees, Kendu trees and Bahera trees. In the year 1989, the defendants along with family members constructed brick house demolishing the earlier old house which was damaged due to heavy rain. It is next pleaded that Circle Officer, Bishnugarh found possession of the defendants over the suit land since long time and recommended to the L.R.D.C. for new settlement in favour of the defendants and L.R.D.C. sent the settlement record to the S.D.M., Hazaribagh, who also approved the proposal of the circle officer and accordingly, the circle officer settled the land in the name of the defendants with map and parcha. The defendants claimed that the ancestors of the defendants were in peaceful possession over the suit land since 1930 and their possession has remained undisturbed and keeping in view the long possession in mind, the State settled the land in their f
The plaintiff must prove their title in a private suit, and concurrent findings of fact by lower courts are not to be interfered with unless perverse.
Adverse Possession – Necessary ingredients to constitute adverse possession must be proved in order to perfect title over land.
The plaintiffs failed to establish title and possession over the suit land, and the suit was invalid due to non-joinder of necessary parties.
A minor cannot acquire property rights through settlement, and claims must be substantiated by proper documentation to establish title and possession.
The plaintiffs cannot claim a mere declaration of title without seeking further relief for possession, as stipulated by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, rendering the suit not maintainable.
The burden of proof lies on the party asserting ownership or adverse possession, and mere entries in khatian records do not suffice to establish title without supporting evidence.
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....
Concurrent findings of fact by lower courts cannot be interfered with unless they are perverse or irrational.
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
