The burden of proof lies on the party asserting a claim, and failure to establish ownership or challenge necessary permissions results in dismissal of the appeal.

JUDGMENT :

Heard the parties.

2. This Second Appeal filed under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been preferred against the judgment of affirmance dated 13.07.2020 passed by learned A.J.C.-XVI, Ranchi in Civil Appeal No.34 of 2019 whereby and where under the learned first appellate court has dismissed the appeal on contest.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the plaintiffs filed Title Suit No.130 of 2005 in the court of Munsif, Ranchi with a prayer for declaration of right, title, interest and to declare that the sale-deed having been in the teeth of Section 46 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act as no sanction has been obtained from the Deputy Commissioner, is void. The case of the plaintiffs in brief is that the suit land was recorded in the R. S. Record of Rights in the name of Paruwa Oraon-son of Dhundha Oraon. Paruwa Oraon died leaving behind his only son namely Chamu Oraon. The plaintiffs are the descendants of the said Chamu Oraon. After the death of their father, the plaintiffs inherited the suit land. As the defendant No.1 with the help of muscle man obstructed in ploughing of the suit land, the plaintiffs filed an application under Section 144 Cr.P.C. in the court of S.D.M., Ranchi vide Misc. Case No.42 of 2004 in which proceeding the defendant No.1 claimed that the suit land was purchased by them in the year 1984 from the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs contended that the sale-deed in favour of the defendants has been obtained by practicing fraud and by way of impersonation, have created the documents in order to grab the suit land.

4. The defendant Nos.1 to 6 in their written-statement besides challenging the maintainability of the suit on various technical grounds pleaded that the plaintiffs have jointly filed application under Section 46 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act for obtaining permission to sell the suit land in favour of the father of the defendants namely Mangu Oraon and after obtaining permission, the plaintiffs have executed the sale-deed. After such purchase, the land was mutated in the name of father of the defendants.

5. On the basis of the rival pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed the following eight issues:-

(i) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form?

(ii) Whether any valid cause of action for the suit?

(iii) Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

(iv) Whether there is a bar of non-joinder of necessary party?

(v) Whether the suit is barred by provision of Section 258 of C.N.T. Act?

(vi) Whether the suit land has been transferred legally and by valid sale deed executed on 24.04.1984 in favour of the father of the defendants/respondents no. 1 to 6?

(vii) Whether the plaintiffs have any right, title, interest and possession over the suit land?

(viii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for any other reliefs?

6. In support of their case, the plaintiffs examined three witnesses and proved the Khatiyan of Khata No.24 which has been marked as Ext.1 and Draft Record of Rights which has been marked X for identification. From the side of the defendants besides seven witnesses, documents were also filed which have been marked as Ext. A to F/3.

7. The learned trial court first took up issue Nos.(vi) and (vii) together and after considering the materials available in the record, answered the issue No.(vi) in favour of the plaintiffs in the affirmative while answered the issue No.(vii) against the plaintiffs.

8. The learned trial court next took up issue No.(v) and after considering the evidence in the record and relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Parsuram Mahto & Others vs. Mohan Lal Mahto reported in 1996 (1) BLJR 571 (Pat) wherein the Hon’ble Patna High Court held that a suit for title and possession can never be a bar under Section 258 of the C.N.T. Act even if there were proceedings between the parties; answered the issue in the negative.

9. The learned trial court next took up issue No.(iv), (viii), (ii) in that seriatim and answered