IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI S.A. No. 69 of 2022 Soma Kumhar, aged about 53 years, son of late Amin Kumhar, resident of village Piskahatu, P.O. & P.S. Arki, District Khunti, Jharkhand … … Defendant/Appellant/Appellant Versus

1. Nilabar Singh Munda, 2. Vishwadeo Munda Both sons of late Bhutnath Mundari, resident of village Piskahatu, P.O.

& P.S. Arki, District Khunti, Jharkhand … … Plaintiffs/Respondents/Respondents

3. Deputy Commissioner, Khunti, P.O.+P.S.+District Khunti … … Proforma Defendant/Respondent/Respondent ---

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---

For the Appellant : Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents :

---

13/6th November 2025

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant.

2. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 25.02.2022 (decree dated 10.03.2022) passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Khunti in Civil Appeal No. 18 of 2018 confirming the judgment dated 24.09.2018 (decree dated 01.10.2018) passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division (Munsif), Khunti in Title Suit No. 09/2013. The learned trial court has decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the plaintiffs were the recorded tenant in connection with the suit property and the contesting defendant claimed the suit property by virtue of Sada Hukumnama dated 20.10.1945 issued by the father of the plaintiffs. He submits that the learned court has rejected the claim of the defendant on the ground that the defendant has not been able to show under what provision of law, Bhutnath Munda could execute/issue Hukumnama when he was not the Jamindar of the village.

4. The learned counsel has referred to the judgment passed by this Court in L.P.A. No. 61 of 2004 in the case of Godwin Ekka vs. State of Bihar reported in (2009) 57 BLJR 2459 decided on 03.03.2009 arising out of a proceeding under Section 71A of the Chhota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 (C.N.T. Act) and has referred to paragraph 25 of the said judgment to submit that there is no provision under C.N.T. Act which prohibits creation of under-raiyati tenancy. He submits that in the said case also, there was Kaiyami raiyati by virtue of settlement who in turn created an under-raiyati tenancy.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, this Court finds that the specific case of the plaintiffs was that the ancestors of the plaintiffs were settled raiyats with respect to the suit property and were having kaimi holding. The recorded tenants were Pustam Mundari and Guru Mundari, both sons of Mohan Mundari as a Kaimi holding and they were in possession of the property. Guru Mundari died issueless and heirless, but Pustam Mundari was survived by his only son Bhutnath Mundari who also died leaving behind the plaintiffs as heirs and successors and the plaintiffs claimed to have been in possession of the property.

6. It was further case of the plaintiffs that the defendant raised unfounded claim for the first time in the month of February 2013 and came over the land and started excavating foundation of a house and ultimately a proceeding under Section 144 of Cr.P.C. was initiated which was numbered as Misc. Case No. 22 of 2013. The defendant claimed that his father owned the suit property by virtue of Sada Hukumnama issued in the year 1945.

7. The case of the plaintiffs was that the claim of the defendant was illegal and incorrect also because kaimi raiyat cannot execute Hukumnama and a cloud was created in the title of the plaintiffs and consequently the suit was filed.

8. So far as the defendant is concerned, they contested the case on the point that the suit was barred by limitation, waiver, estoppel and acquiescence and barred under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act and also for non-joinder of necessary parties. The defendant claimed that the land recorded under khata no. 23 plot no. 82 area 0.30 acres was already conveyed or transferred by Bhutnath Mundari, fathe