SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Jhk) 1691

2025:JHHC:22495
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
Anita Devi Widow Of Late Ishwari Prasad - Appellant
Versus
Mahangu Ram S/o Late Bilash Paswan - Respondent 
Second Appeal No. 17 of 1997(R)
Decided on : 07-08-2025
Advocate Appeared : 
For the Appellants : Mr. Manjul Prasad, Sr. Advocate Mr. Aukhouri Prakhar Sinha, Advocate Mr. Aman Kedia, Advocate 
For the Respondents : Mr. Kundan Kumar Ambastha, Advocate Mr. Shiv Prasad, Advocate Mr. Arvind Prakash Malakar, Advocate Md. Abdul Wahab, Advocate Mr. Sushil Kumar Verma, Advocate

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Manjul Prasad, Sr. Advocate Mr. Aukhouri Prakhar Sinha, Advocate Mr. Aman Kedia, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Kundan Kumar Ambastha, Advocate Mr. Shiv Prasad, Advocate Mr. Arvind Prakash Malakar, Advocate Md. Abdul Wahab, Advocate Mr. Sushil Kumar Verma, Advocate

Transfer of agricultural land by a member of Scheduled Caste requires prior permission under Section 46 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, rendering unapproved sales invalid.

Headnote:(A) Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 - Section 46 - Validity of transfer of agricultural land by a member of Scheduled Caste without prior permission of the Deputy Commissioner - The trial court found that plaintiff's claim to land based on a sale deed is invalid as the requisite permission was not obtained; therefore, the plaintiff failed to establish title and possession. (Paras 3, 6, 13)

(B) Adverse Possession - The court addressed whether the plaintiff perfected title through adverse possession; ultimately, the concurrent findings of both courts held that the plaintiff failed to prove possession against the defendants as their title and possession was established. (Paras 10, 13)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff claims to have purchased agricultural land via a sale deed in 1964 but failed to secure legal permission due to restrictions under applicable tenancy laws, leading to disputed possession with the defendants.

Findings of Court:
The trial court and appellate court both affirmed that the sale deed was invalid and that the defendants had demonstrated rightful possession.

Issues: The court addressed the legality of the sale deed and the validity of possession claims under adverse possession laws.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that without prior approval for the land transfer, the sale deed lacked validity under the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act; the plaintiff's possession could not be recognized legally.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. factual background of the property dispute (Para 2 , 3)
2. defendants' claims and trial court findings (Para 4 , 6)
3. substantial questions of law raised by appellants (Para 7 , 9)
4. analysis of statutory provisions and arguments (Para 10 , 11)
5. validity of the transfer of agricultural land (Para 12 , 13)
6. conclusion and directive on cost (Para 14 , 15)

JUDGMENT :

PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. I have already heard the arguments advanced by Mr. Manjul Prasad, learned senior counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. Kundan Kumar Ambastha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. Instant second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 11.12.1996 (decree signed on 03.01.1997) passed by learned 4th Additional District Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in Title Appeal No.13 of 1990 confirming the judgment and decree dated 30.03.1990 (decree signed on 16.04.1990) passed by learned Munsiff, Civil Judge, Junior Division, Garhwa in Title Suit No.32 of 1987.

3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that the plaintiff/appellants instituted the suit stating inter alia that as per Sonpura Raj comprising several villages including Village Kandi, was under the management of Ward and Encumbered Estate, Palamau and it was released when the last proprietor Raja Narendra Nath Sahi attained majority. It is further alleged that in the year 2023, there was abnormal flood in river Sone and entire Village Sonpura merged in the river including the houses and agricultural lands of the inhabitants of the said village and they became homeless and landless having no place to take shelter. It is further alleged that one Kail Dusadh with permission of Manager, Ward and Encumbered Estate cleared shrubs and jungle (forest) of Village Kandi and constructed a house and made 1.91 acres land cultivable and settled in the Village Kandi. The said area comprising survey Plot Nos.1 and 7, was subsequently in the year 1933-34 recognized the tenancy of Kail Dusadh by Manager of Estate issuing customary Parwana and pucca rent receipt. Thereafter, the said Estate was succeeded by the Raja Nagendra Nath Sahi, who also received/realized rent and issued rent receipts to Kail Dusadh. It is further alleged that Kail Dusadh died in the year 1951 leaving behind his sole son Karmu Dusadh who inherited the entire landed property of his father. It is further stated that plaintiff's elder brother was serving as a School Teacher of High School, Kandi ad was residing in a rented house in the said village. The plaintiff also used to visit his brother at Village Kandi. It is further alleged that in the year 1951, plaintiff had gone to see his ailing elder brother, meanwhile, one Karmu Dusadh @ Karmu Singh asked for loan of Rs.200/- for conducting sharadh of his father, which was paid by the plaintiff through his brother. In lieu of the said loan amount Karmu Dusadh agreed to sell the land of Schedule 'A' to the plaintiff for consideration of Rs.500/- out of which Rs.200/- was paid in advance by the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff came into possession of the suit Schedule 'A' land and house. It is further alleged that the plaintiff continued his possession over Schedule 'A' land till 1964. Thereafter, Karmu Dusadh came to the plaintiff and asked him to purchase the land, accordingly a sale deed was executed by Karmu Dusadh in favour of plaintiff on 09.06.1964 after receiving the balance consideration amount of Rs.300/- in the presence of Sub- Registrar, Hussainabad. Therefore, plaintiff acquired right, title and interest over the purchased land as well also he reclaimed and brought under cultivation the part land lying all around the purchased land after expanding handsome amount. The total area of land became 2.77 acres including the purchased land. It is further alleged that at the time of vesting of zamindari, Sonpur Estate did not file return of his estate for the land settled with the tenants by the Manager of the Ward and Encumbere

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top