IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

S. A. No. 190 of 2022

1. Abhay Singh, aged about 42 years

2. Tej Kumar Singh, aged about 38 years

Both S/o: Late Dipti Singh, R/o: Balrampur, P.O.- Gamharia, P.s.-

Gamharia, District: Seraikella-Kharswan, Jharkhand.

… … Appellants/Appellants/Plaintiffs

Versus

1. Ajoy Jaisawal 2. Bijoy Jaisawal 3. Bipin Jaisawal 4. Binoy Jaisawal 5. Bipul Jaisawal

1 to 5 S/o: Late Mohan Jaisawal

6. Archana Devi 7. Anju Jaisawal

Both D/o: Late Mohan Jaisawal

All R/o: Hill view Colony, TAYO Gate, Gamharia, P.O. + P.S.-

Gamharia, District: Seraikella-Kharswan

… … Respondents/Respondents/Defendants

---

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

For the Appellants : Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, Advocate

: Mr. Abhishek Kumar Dubey, Advocate

For the Respondents : Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Advocate

---

C.A.V. On 15.09.2025 Pronounced on 15.12.2025

1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 21.07.2022 (decree signed on 04.08.2022) passed by the learned District Judge-I, Seraikella-Kharsawan in Civil Appeal No. 40 of 2011 affirming the judgment dated 30.06.2011 (decree signed on 11.07.2011) in Title Suit No. 111 of 2007 passed by learned

Additional Munsif, Civil Courts, Seraikella-Kharsawan.

2. The suit has been dismissed by the learned trial court and the judgment of the learned trial Court was affirmed by the learned 1^st appellate Court. Consequently, the plaintiffs are the appellants before

this Court.

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

a. For a declaration that the suit land is the purchased land of

the plaintiff’s mother and the plaintiffs have got a right, title,

interests over the same.

b. For confirmation of possession and in alternative if the plaintiffs are found to be dispossessed then for recovery of khas possession.

c. For declaration that the sale deed No. 2813 dated 06.06.1992 is nothing but a false and fabricated fake deed and the same was never acted upon and the same is fraudulently obtained and the same is not binding against the plaintiffs or anybody else since there was no existence of land of the said area mentioned in the deed.

d. For a permanent injunction restraining the defendant to disturb the plaintiffs suit land area.

e. For cost of the suit.

f. For any other relief or reliefs for which the plaintiff’s are found to be entitled.

4. The appeal was admitted vide order dated 06^th February, 2025 On 06^th February, 2025 only one substantial question of law was framed and thereafter, one additional substantial question of law has been framed vide order dated 18^th June, 2025 by submitting that it was admitted fact from the plaint itself that Gunadhar Ghosh was left with 13 decimals of land out of total land of 19½ decimals after he had sold 6 ½ decimal of land to the defendants. Thus, there are two substantial questions of law to be answered in this appeal which are as follows: -

“I. Whether both the learned courts below erred in not considering that when the defendants have admitted the sale deed executed by Gunadhar Ghose in favour of plaintiffs and further admitted that original raiyat (Jagannath Napit & his son Gopal Napit) had sold some plots of land to Gunadhar Ghose and further came with a defence that Gunadhar Ghose did not have possession of 9 decimals of land rather only 6 ½ decimals, then onus of proving of such facts was with the defendants?

II. Whether both the learned courts erred in not considering the admitted case of the defendants, that Gunadhar Ghose was left with 13 decimals of land out of his total land of 19 ½ decimals, after he had sold 6 ½ decimals of land to defendants and further when plaintiffs proved their possession over 9 decimals of land purchased from Gunadhar Ghose by way of registered sale deed, mutation and rent receipts, plaintiffs were successful in proving their right, title and interest over the suit land?

Arguments of the appellants.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the dispute relates to khata no. 20, plot no. 259 which had total area of