##PAGE1##

2026:JHHC:2180

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

---

1

2026:JHHC:2180

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

2