IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI S. A. No. 212 of 2022 Akshay Kumar Jaiswal, aged about 47 years, son of Ugra Narayan Jaiswal, resident of Godda Town, P.O. Godda, P.S. Sub-Division, District-Godda.

… … Plaintiff/Appellant/Appellant Versus

1. Rukmani Devi, Wife of Chandra Shekhar Ramdas.

2. Rakesh Ramdas, Son of Late Chandra Shekhar Ramdas.

3. Shewata Ramdas, Daughter of Chandra Shekhar Das.

4. Putul Ramdas, Daughter of Chandra Shekhar Das.

5. Shankar

6. Rajeev Ramdas

7. Sanjeev Ramdas all sons of Late Devendra Ramdas

8. Sanjukta Devi, Daughter of Late Devendra Ramdas, Residents of Village Korka, P.O. and P.S. Pathargama, District-Godda.

... ... Defendants 1^st party/Respondent 1^st party/Respondent

1^st party

9. Shatrughan Mishra, Son of Late Radhika Mishra

10.Nutan Dubey, Wife of Prem Kumar Dubey, Resident of Babupara, P.O. and P.S. Godda (T), District-Godda.

11.Bharatji Mishra, Son of Late Radhika Mishra

12.Smt. Jaymala Devi, Daughter of Late Radhika Mishra.

13.Dinkar Mishra

14.Madhukar Mishra

15.Bablu Mishra, Sons of Ramji Mishra

16.Papu Mishra

17.Bijay Shankar Mishra, Sons of Bharatji Mishra

18.Roshan Kumar Mishra

19.Babul Mishra both sons of Satrughan Mishra, all residents of Godda Town, P.O.-Godda, P.S. Sub-Division and District-Godda.

... ... Defendant 2^nd party/Respondent 2^nd party/Respondent 2^nd party

20.Sabitri Devi, Wife of Late Ugra Narayan Jaiswal

21.Bipin Kumar Jaiswal, Son of Ugra Narayan Jaiswal

22.Upendra Narayan Jaiswal 23.Birendra Narayan Jaiswal All sons of Late Babu Chakndrika Prasad Jaiswal

24.Rajpati Devi, Daughter of Late Babu Chandrika Prasad Jaiswal, Resident of Godda Town, P.O. Godda, P.S. Sub Division and District-Godda.

... ... Plaintiffs/Appellants/Proforma Respondents ---

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

For the Appellant : Mr. Sandeep Verma, Advocate ---

Lastly, heard on 20.01.2026 Pronounced on 28.01.2026

1. This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the judgment dated 30.09.2022 (decree signed on 25.11.2022) passed by learned District Judge-1^st, Godda in Civil Appeal No. 07 of 2009. The learned 1^st appellate court has partly dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiffs. The trial court judgment is dated 09.04.2009 (decree signed on 27.07.2009) passed by learned Sub-Judge 1^st, Godda in Title Suit No. 27 of 1985 and the suit was dismissed.

2. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs against two sets of defendants, defendant 1^st party and defendant 2^nd party.

3. The plaintiffs sought a declaration of their title with respect to Schedule ‘A’ land alleging that the same was in illegal possession of defendant 1^st party and also with respect to schedule ‘B’ land alleging that the same was in illegal possession of defendant No. 2 to 4 amongst the defendant 2^nd party. The plaintiffs also sought a decree for recovery of possession of the suit land from the defendants.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the suit property consisted of schedule ‘A’ and schedule ‘B’ and the suit was dismissed. At the 1^st appellate stage, the appeal was allowed only in connection with schedule ‘A’ property and so far as schedule ‘B’ property is concerned, the 1^st appeal was also dismissed and accordingly, the plaintiff/appellant is aggrieved with respect to finding of the learned 1^st appellate court in connection with schedule ‘B property only.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the finding of the learned court that Radhika Mishra, father of the defendant No. 2 to 4, was in possession with respect to schedule ‘B’ property since 1936-37 was based on three facts (A) Oral Settlement, (B) Kurfanama (Which was never exhibited) and (C) Compromise decree passed in Title Suit No. 08 of 1962. He has also submitted that the compromise decree was exhibited by the plaintiffs as Exhibit-8.

6. Learned counsel has submitted that Kurfanama was never produced before the court and accordingly, the very basis on which defendant No. 2 to 4 claimed possession was not exhibited. He has submitted that t