JUDGMENT :

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.

This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 08.03.2006 (decree signed on 28.03.2006) passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, V, Chaibasa, in Title Appeal No. 29 of 1995/R. No. 12 of 2003 whereby the learned 1st appellate court has allowed the appeal preferred by the plaintiff and has set aside the judgement and decree dated 17 June, 1995 (decree signed on 12.07.1995) passed by learned Munsif Chaibasa in Title Suit No. 6 of 1992. The Title Suit was dismissed by the learned Munsif. The appeal was allowed and consequently the defendant no.1, who is the contesting defendant, is the appellant before this court.

2. The suit was filed for declaration of plaintiff's right, title, interest over the Schedule A property and for confirmation of plaintiff's possession over the suit land and if the plaintiff was found dispossessed from the suit land, a prayer was made for delivery of possession to the plaintiff after evicting the defendant therefrom.

3. This appeal was admitted for final hearing vide order dated 05.03.2009 on the following substantial question of law: -

(i) Whether the court of appeal below has committed error of law in reversing the findings recorded by the trial court without complying the provisions under Order 41 Rule 33 CPC?

(ii) Whether the findings recorded by the appellate court suffers from serious perversity in as much as for non consideration of the evidence in its true perspective?

Submissions of the appellant (defendant no.1)

A. So far as the 2nd substantial question of law is concerned, the same is very widely worded and there is no mention as to non consideration of which evidence in true perspective has made the appellate court’s judgment perverse. Faced with this situation, when the matter was taken up on 27.01.2026, the learned counsel for the appellant had submitted that for the 2nd substantial question of law only the evidence of two witnesses would be relevant i.e. P.W. 3 and P.W.7 and he would be referring to exhibit 1, exhibit 8, exhibit 8/a and exhibit-C.

Exhibit 1 is the sale deed executed by proforma defendant no.3 in the name of the plaintiff; Exhibit 8 is the Khatian of the year 1917 and Exhibit 8/a is the Khatian of the year 1964 and exhibit-C is the sale deed relied upon by the defendant no.1 in the light of the pleadings of the respective parties. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant as recorded in order dated 27.01.2026 is quoted as under:

“Upon perusal of the second substantial question of law, which is widely worded, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that only evidences of two witnesses would be relevant i.e. P.W.3 and P.W. 7 and he shall also be placing Exhibit 1, which is the sale deed relied upon by the plaintiffs. These three evidences on record would be sufficient to dispose of the substantial question of law no.2.

2. The learned counsel submits that he shall also rely upon Exhibit C which is the sale deed of the defendants, exhibits 8 and 8/A, which are the two khatians exhibited by the plaintiffs. He also submits that these evidences are to be considered in the light of the pleadings of the respective parties.”

On the said date, the petition seeking early hearing of the appeal was allowed and the matter was posted for hearing on 29.01.2026 and judgement was reserved on 30.01.2026.

B. The plaintiff had purchased the property from defendant no. 3 by registered sale deed dated 23.11.1990 after obtaining permission from the Deputy Commissioner. The sale deed is marked as Exhibit-1. Exhibit-4 is the order sheet granting permission of the competent authority for executing the sale deed dated 23.11.1990. The plaintiff and defendant no.3 are tribals, therefore defendant no. 2, Deputy Commissioner being a necessary party has been made party in the proceedings.

C. It was the case of the plaintiff that recorded tenant with respect to the suit property is Chhota Pandu Ho whose name was re