The court ruled that possession and title rights must consider all relevant evidence, reaffirming ownership claims despite conflicting assertions of title from opposing parties.

JUDGMENT :

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.

1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 16^th July, 2019 (decree signed on 26.07.2019) passed by the learned District Judge- XIV, Dhanbad in Civil Appeal No. 01 of 2018, whereby the appeal has been partly allowed. The learned trial court judgment is dated 28.11.2017 (decree signed on 07.12.2017) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-II, Dhanbad in Title Suit No. 100 of 2003, whereby the learned trial court has decided the suit in favour of the plaintiffs.

2. This appeal was admitted for hearing vide order dated 30.01.2025 on the following substantial question of law: -

“Whether the learned first appellate court failed to peruse the exhibits in toto while partly allowing the first appeal in favour of the defendants and has further failed to consider the document in its correct perspective?”

Arguments of the appellants.

3. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the learned trial Court had committed no error in deciding the case. Samsuddin Khalifa father of Md. Ibrahim Tailor had acquired the property of Schedule-A land through registered sale deed and registered gift deed in the year 1955/1960 and 1954. On 22.07.65 through registered sale deed No. 12511 he sold the entire property to his wife Sarifan. Sarifan died in the year 1974-75 leaving behind her only son Md. Ibrahim Tailor and married daughter Nasiran Khatoon who was living in her in-laws house. Nasiran Khatoon has relinquished her claim/share of the property in Schedule-A land. Md. Ibrahim Tailor sold the land to the plaintiffs vide registered sale deed No. 5013 dated 19.09.95 and sale deed No. 6794 dated 09.01.98. The plaintiffs got their name mutated and were in possession of the purchased property. Later on vide sale deed No. 9312 dated 31.10.06 and 9313 dated 31.10.06 they have sold the property to defendant No. 3 and 4. Learned Trial Court while deciding Issue No. IV and V have rightly decided that the plaintiffs are entitled for decree of their right, title, interest and possession over the suit property. She submits that once the schedule B property was a part of schedule A property and schedule A property was acquired by the plaintiffs, there was no occasion to interfere with the judgement passed by the learned trial court by the learned 1^st appellate court. Right, title and possession of the entire schedule A property was with the plaintiffs and hence with the defendant no. 3 and 4 which was mutated in their name. It is submitted that the ^{learned 1st appellate court has not recorded given any finding with} respect to the possession of property covered by exhibit-A although the entire property covered by schedule A stood mutated in favour of the defendant no. 3 and 4 and has consequently failed to consider the exhibits in toto while partly allowing the 1^st appeal. She has submitted that the scope of schedule A and Schedule B properties have not been properly considered by referring to the respective sale deeds and the documents relating to mutation with regards to possession .

Arguments of the Respondents.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents while clarifying the position with regards to schedule A and schedule B properties has submitted that schedule-A property was having total area of 3.72 decimal which is equivalent to 2 ¼ Katha. He submits that schedule-B property is a part of schedule-A property but schedule-B consisted of two items i.e. item No.1 total area 0.61 decimal and item No.2 total area 1.23 decimal. The trial court had decreed the suit although recorded a finding that Nasiran Khatoon was the sister of Md. Ibr