A minor cannot acquire property rights through settlement, and claims must be substantiated by proper documentation to establish title and possession.

JUDGMENT :

Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.

Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. This second appeal has been filed against the Judgement and decree dated 27.06.2022 (Decree sealed & signed on 11.07.2022) passed by the learned District Judge-II, Seraikella-Kharsawan in Title Appeal No.17 of 2018 whereby and whereunder the appeal was dismissed, confirming the Judgment and decree dated 30.09.2008 (Decree sealed & signed on 10.11.2008) passed by the learned Munsif, Seraikella in Title Suit No.43 of 1999 and Title Suit No.26/2007 whereby and whereunder the suit was dismissed on contest.

3. The plaintiffs had filed the suit against the defendants for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit land and for recovery of khas possession of the same and also for injunction.

4. Arguments of the appellants.

a. Although there are concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts but substantial questions of law arise for consideration in this case.

b. The appellant was claiming title on the basis of an unregistered Patta executed by the then zamindar of Seraikella on 30.04.1945. Pursuant to the Patta the original plaintiffs started paying rent to zamindar and after abolition of zamindari, he continued to be in possession of the property.

c. In the remarks column of the Khatiyan, the plaintiff was shown to be in possession of the property and there was certain erroneous entry which continued till 1989 but as soon as he came to learn about it he filed a case under Section 90 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act before the Charge Officer, Singhbhum Settlement at Jamshedpur which was registered as Case No. 7/89-90 and vide order dated 02.05.1996, the plaintiff was found in possession of the suit land since 1945 and the class of land was also corrected as Makan Sahan and Bari land instead of Purani Parti which was earlier recorded. The said order became final.

d. The plaintiff perfected his right, title and interest over the suit land which he acquired in the year 1945 from the Ruler of the Saraikella Estate and continued his uninterrupted peaceful possession since then.

e. The defendant No. 1, who has no right, title and interest over the suit property allowed the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 to act arbitrarily without taking recourse to law to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land which casted a doubt with regard to right, title and interest of the plaintiff and therefore, the plaintiff instituted the suit for declaration of his right, title and interest and recovery of khas possession of the suit land when the cause of action arose on 06.04.1999 and the defendants illegally undertook construction over the suit land.

f. Though it was never the case of the defendants that the Executor of the Hukumnama was not the then zamindar, still the Appellate Court while upholding the judgment of learned Trial Court recorded that the case of the plaintiff is based on alleged Hukumnama and as per English translation the Hukumnama was executed by Sur Sattpati and not by the Ruler who has no title over the property and on this basis the Appellate Court held that the Hukumnama -Patta (Ext. 3) was not executed by the Competent Authority. Such finding is beyond the pleadings of the respective parties and therefore, the Appellate Court has misdirected itself by giving the said findings on the basis of which judgment of the Trial Court has been upheld.

5. The specific case of the plaintiffs was that Raja of Seraikella by a Hukumnama dated 30.04.1945 settled the suit land which was his khas property with the plaintiff on permanent raiyati right upon acceptance of a sum of Rs.500/- as Salami; re