Correction slips and rent receipts do not prove title or partition in ancestral property disputes; plaintiff must establish ownership and permissive possession when denied; first appellate reversal upheld absent perversity in evidence appreciation.

JUDGMENT :

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.

Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant.

2. This second appeal has been filed against the Judgement dated 31.01.2023 (Decree signed on 08.02.2023) passed by the learned Principal District Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Civil Appeal No.17 of 2019 whereby the Civil Appeal has been allowed. The trial court judgement is dated 30.01.2019 (decree dated 08.02.2019) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division-I), Jamshedpur in Title (Eviction) Suit No.120 of 2011. The suit was decreed and the learned 1^st appellate court has reversed the findings of the learned trial court. Consequently, the plaintiff is the appellant before this Court.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the suit property belongs to the plaintiff. The specific case of the plaintiff was that originally Shyam Murmu was the owner of the suit land which stood recorded in his name in the last survey settlement published in 1964. After the death of the original owner, it devolved upon his sons, the plaintiff and one Srimati Murmu, and during the lifetime of their father, the suit property was handed over to the plaintiff.

4. The learned counsel further submitted that after amicable partition between the plaintiff and his brother, the suit property fell in the exclusive share of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff constructed a house over the suit property. The specific case of the plaintiff was that the plaintiff had allowed the defendant to remain in the suit property on the basis of oral agreement and therefore, the defendant has been in permissive possession as a licensee under the plaintiff. The suit property was required by the plaintiff for repairs, but the defendant refused to vacate the suit property. Consequently, after the issuance of a legal notice and when the defendant did not vacate the suit premises, the suit was filed seeking eviction of the defendant.

5. The learned counsel submitted that the plaintiff had produced the correction slip showing mutation in his favour, though marked with objection, and the rent receipt, also marked with objection, which were exhibited as Exhibits-3 and 4. He submitted that these documents were enough to show that the suit property belonged to the plaintiff. The learned counsel submitted that these documents have not been properly considered and referred to proposed substantial questions of law nos.6, 7 and 8 of the memo of appeal, which are quoted as under:

“(6) Whether the defendant/appellant has admitted the fact that rent of the suit property was paid by the plaintiff?

(7) Whether in the survey settlement of 1964, the suit land is recorded in the name of Plaintiff’s father Shyam Manjhi and documents Ext.3 (correction slip) and Ext.4 (Rent receipt) disclosed that correction slip dated 08.06.2005 is in the name of plaintiff/respondent and rent receipts respectively and copy of Form – 27 in the name of Shyam Manjhi?

(8) Whether the learned lower appellate court arrived at a wrong conclusion that correction slip (Ext.3), Rent receipt (Ext.4), Form 27 are not going to prove any title of the Plaintiff/Respondent as well as this fact that any partition took place between the parties by meets and bounds as because both the parties are claiming suit property as their own ancestral property and these documents are prepared only for collection of rent purpose and no sufficient proof of the fact of partition ?”

6. The case of the plaintiff has been narrated by the learned