Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.
Smt. Sumitra Devi W/o Bhola Nath Panda - Petitioner
Vs.
Mahadeo Tirkey, S/o Bhukala Oraon - Respondent
S. A. No. 243 of 2019
Decided On : 18-02-2025
(A) Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 - Sections 48(4) and 71-A - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXI, Rules 99 and 101 - Second appeal against dismissal of objection in execution proceedings - Appellant claimed possession and title by adverse possession but was not a party in the original partition suit - The executing court dismissed the objection on the ground of lack of jurisdiction to decide the issue of adverse possession and the pending eviction order - The appellate court affirmed the trial court's findings, noting the appellant's failure to prove valid title or consistent possession. (Paras 1, 2, 12, 13)
(B) Adverse Possession - The court emphasized that a claim of adverse possession cannot be upheld if the continuity of possession is disrupted by a lawful eviction. (Paras 8, 12)
(C) Jurisdiction - The court reiterated that the authority under the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act had jurisdiction to consider limitations regarding eviction, thus the civil court's jurisdiction was not applicable in this context. (Paras 3, 12)
Facts of the case:
The appellant, claiming possession of land settled by Chhaparbandi, argued her title based on a sale deed and adverse possession, despite not being a party to the original partition suit. The respondent countered with evidence of lawful eviction and title.
Findings of Court:
The courts found the appellant failed to establish her claim of title and consistent possession, affirming the respondent's rightful ownership.
Issues: The main issues included the maintainability of the objection, the appellant's claim of title, the application of limitation under the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, and the binding nature of the original decree.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the appellant's conflicting claims of title and adverse possession were impermissible, and that the executing court rightfully dismissed her objection based on lack of jurisdiction and failure to prove title.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.
1. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 13.03.2019 and decree signed on 25.03.2019 passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-X, Ranchi in Civil Appeal No.28 of 2015, whereby the said appeal has been dismissed. The judgment and decree dated 29.05.2015 was passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)- VIII, Ranchi in Misc. Case No.04 of 2006, whereby the objection filed by the present appellant under Order-XXI, Rule-99 and 101 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure was dismissed. The aforesaid petition was filed before the executing court dealing with execution of judgment and decree passed in Partition Suit No.99 of 1995 and admittedly, the appellant was not a party in the partition suit.
Arguments of the appellant on the point of formulating substantial question of law in this appeal.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant was not a party in the partition suit and at the stage of execution the appellant filed a petition under Order XXI Rule 99 and 101 read with Section 151 of CPC by stating that the appellant is in possession of the property. The learned counsel submits that the appellant is in possession of the property and she has already perfected her title by adverse possession irrespective of the order of eviction passed under Section 71-A of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 to evict the appellant from the property. The learned court ought to have decided the objection particularly with regard to adverse possession and Section 48(4) of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 which prescribes a period of limitation of 12 years to file a petition seeking eviction of a person in possession. The learned counsel has submitted that the executing Court has refused to decide the issue on the ground that there is already an order of eviction passed in SAR Case No. 389 of 2004-05 and that the revision is pending before the Commissioner arising out of the order of eviction passed in SAR Case No. 389 of 2004-05 and the said authority would have the jurisdiction to decide as to whether the order of eviction passed under Section 71-A was barred by limitation. The learned counsel has submitted that the Civil Court had the necessary jurisdiction to decide all the points of objection. The learned counsel has submitted that the Appellate Court has not considered the issue regarding Section 48(4) of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908.
3. However, during the course of hearing, it is not in dispute that an authority passing an order under Section 71-A of Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 also has the jurisdiction to consider the point of limitation in connection with prayer for eviction made through an application under Section 71-A of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 and the revision arising out of the orders passed under Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 was pending before the competent authority.
4. At this, the learned counsel has also submitted that in case this court is not inclined to admit this appeal, it requires an observation that the appellant may still have a remedy in the revision pending before the revisional authority under the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908.
Findings of this court.
5. It was the case of the objector (appellant) that the suit land was settled through Chhaparbandi right in favour of Smt. Saraswati Devi by Chhotka Mahadeo Oraon, the ancestor of the respondent, on 26.06.1946 and she came in possession of the said property and regularly paid tax and obtained receipts thereof. It was further the case of the objector that Smt. Saraswati Devi executed a registered deed of sale in favour of the objector on 09.06.1964 and immediately thereafter the objector came in possession of the suit property and constructed a building. As back as in the year 1965, a criminal case was instituted by Ranchi Improvement Trust against the objector alleging unauthorized construction which was registered as case no.C- II-113/65. It was also d
A claim of adverse possession fails if the continuity of possession is disrupted by lawful eviction, and the executing court lacks jurisdiction to decide title issues when eviction proceedings are pe....
A minor cannot acquire property rights through settlement, and claims must be substantiated by proper documentation to establish title and possession.
The court confirmed that adverse possession can secure title even against invalid transfer documents, provided uninterrupted possession exceeds 12 years and is public, emphasizing the significance of....
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.
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 ....
An entry in record-of-rights is a rebuttable presumption of ownership; without evidence of dispossession, legal claims rooted in such entries remain fortified.
(1) Pleadings – Evidence can be permitted to be given only on a plea properly raised and not in contradiction of plea.(2) Adverse Possession – Once plaintiff proves his title over suit property it i....
Permissive possession does not mature into adverse without hostile animus known to owner and proof of continuous, open denial of title for 12 years; no re-appreciation of concurrent factual findings ....
The original sale deed must be produced to validate property claims; failure to do so leads to adverse inferences and dismissal of the suit.
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
