An entry in record-of-rights is a rebuttable presumption of ownership; without evidence of dispossession, legal claims rooted in such entries remain fortified.

JUDGMENT :

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.

This second appeal has been filed against the Judgment dated 08.05.2018 (Decree signed on 21.05.2018) passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-II at Ranchi in Civil (Title) Appeal No.46 of 2016 whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the plaintiff/appellant has been dismissed and the Judgment dated 29.11.2016 (Decree signed on 09.12.2016) passed by the learned Munsif, Civil Court, Ranchi in Title Suit No.01 of 2010 has been affirmed.

2. This appeal was admitted for hearing vide order dated 23.08.2023 on the following substantial questions of law:

(i) As the defendant admitted that the ancestor of the plaintiff was the recorded tenant of the suit land, but the finding of the learned trial court that the defendants have failed to establish the surrender of the suit land by the ancestor of the plaintiff namely Dayal Kumhar and the said finding of the learned trial court having not been challenged by any cross appeal or cross-objection by the learned first appellate court and having reached finality; whether the learned first appellate court committed perversity by not decreeing the suit of the plaintiff by allowing the appeal?

(ii) Whether the learned first appellate court committed perversity in overlooking the fact that though in the Ext.3 which is the certified copy of Khatiyan of Khata No.148, in the column no. III, it has been mentioned that the nature of the settlement is Kayami (permanent); hence, there is no way, there could have been any surrender by the ancestors of the plaintiff namely Dayal Kumhar?

Arguments on behalf of the Appellant

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was the plaintiff before the learned trial Court and claimed that in the record-of-rights, the property was shown as "Ardhbatai" and settlement was Kayami (permanent) in favour of Dayal Kumhar. The plaintiff is the descendant of Dayal Kumhar.

4. The learned counsel further submitted that the plaintiff was in peaceful possession of the suit land without any interference. However, some cloud was created when a proceeding under section 144 of Cr.P.C. was instituted and the defendants claimed right, title and possession over the suit land. He submitted that the record-of-rights was prepared in the name of Dayal Kumhar in the year 1935.

5. Consequently, the plaintiff filed the suit praying that a decree may be passed in favour of the plaintiff on the basis of R.S. Khatiyan and possession of the plaintiff may be confirmed and if found dispossessed, possession may be delivered through the process of Court. It was also prayed that if any surrender deed or subsequent settlement was made, the same may be declared null and void and the same may not bind the plaintiff.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the defendants appeared in the suit and did not dispute that with regard to the suit property, the name of Dayal Kumhar was recorded in the finally published record-of-rights on 03.01.1935 as "Ardhbataidar", but pleaded that Dayal Kumhar voluntarily surrendered the suit land on 05.12.1939 to the then landlord Thakur Tilakdh