Plaintiffs failed to prove title and boundary for land claim, resulting in dismissal of suit for lack of evidence.

15/4th November 2025

1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

2. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 29.06.2019 (decree signed on 09.07.2019) passed by the learned District Judge-IV, Dhanbad in Title Appeal No. 29 of 2013, whereby the appeal preferred by the plaintiff has been dismissed. The judgment of the learned trial court is dated 31.01.2013 (decree signed on 14.02.2013) passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge-cum-Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in Title Suit No. 138 of 1998, whereby the suit was dismissed. Plaintiff No. 1 is the appellant and plaintiff No. 2 is the respondent No. 3 before this Court.

3. The suit was filed for the following reliefs: -

(a) A decree for declaration of right, title, interest and confirmation of possession for Schedule-B property be passed in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.

(b) A decree for permanent injunction be passed restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants, employee, representatives, executors, administrators, laborers and assignees to make any interference and obstruction in peaceful enjoyment of Schedule-D property by the plaintiff and or to waste and damage and/or to change the nature and character of the same in any manner.

(c) For the cost of the suit.

(d) For any other relief or reliefs to which the plaintiffs are entitled under the law and equity.

Arguments of the appellant

4. The learned counsel for the appellants, while assailing the impugned judgments, has submitted that the plaintiffs were claiming right, title, interest and possession with respect to Schedule-A and Schedule-B property by virtue of two registered sale deeds exhibit 6 and exhiit-6/A and the defendants were claiming the right over the property stating that the property was acquired for railways in Land Acquisition Proceeding No. 4 and 4/1 of 1952-53. She submits that the defendants did not produce any document in connection with acquisition of property and the two plans and one map, which were produce by the defendants and marked exhibit-A, B and C respectively, did not reflect that the same were in connection with plot nos. 50 no. 51.

5. The learned counsel has submitted that Schedule-A property was 2 katha in plot no. 51 khata no. 11 and the plaintiffs were claiming right over Schedule-A property by virtue of sale deed dated 19.12.1949 (Exhibit-6); Schedule-B property was 2 katha in plot no. 51 khata no. 11 and the plaintiff was claiming right over Schedule-B property by virtue of registered sale deed dated 20.01.1954 (Exhibit-6/a). Schedule-C property was 9 decimals of land in plot no. 50 and 51, khata no. 11 and she submits that it stands admitted that the same was encroached property of the plaintiffs. She has further submitted that the plaintiffs were seeking permanent injunction against the defendants with respect to Schedule-D property which consisted of Schedule-A + Schedule-B + Schedule C, total 16 decimals.

6. The learned counsel submits that in spite of the fact that the defendants failed to prove their right over the property and in spite of the fact that the plaintiffs were claiming Schedule-A and Schedule-B property by virtue of two registered sale deeds, the learned courts have decided the case against the plaintiffs. She submits that even before the Pleader Commissioner, the defendants had not produce any document with regard to acquisition of land. She submits that a substantial question of law be framed and the case be admitted for hearing.

Findings of this Court

7. After hearing the learned c