IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI S.A. No. 241 of 2018 Smt. Rubi Rai Tirkey, Aged about 48 years, D/o late Joseph Tirkey, Resident of Gitilipi, Kulkumdungri, P.O. – Azadnagar, P.S. Mango, District- East Singhbhum … … Appellant/Appellant/Plaintiff Versus

1. State of Jharkhand

2. The Secretary, Department of Forest, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi.

… … Respondents/Respondents/Defendants ---

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

For the Appellant : Mr. Rahul Kr. Gupta, Advocate : Mr. S.B. Gupta, Advocate : Mr. Navnit Prakash, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Tiwari, SC-I : Mr. Krishna Kr. Bhatt, AC to SC-I ---

C.A.V. on 18.09.2025 Pronounced on 31.10.2025 This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated

09.02.2018 (decree signed on 23.02.2018) passed by learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-X, Jamshedpur in Civil Appeal No.03 of 2017 whereby the learned 1^st appellate court dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant. The trial court judgment dated 20.12.2016 (decree signed on 03.01.2017) was passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-I, Jamshedpur in Title Suit No.11 of 2006 whereby the learned trial court had dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.

2. The suit was filed for the following reliefs:

“(a) For a decree declaring the right, title and interest of the plaintiff over the suit property.

(b) For decree declaring that the settlement entry in respect of the schedule land of the plaint in the records of right finally published on 10.08.1979 showing the Khata in the name of “Ban Bibhag Bihar Sarkar” is wrong and erroneous.

(c) For permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the schedule land in any manner whatsoever and also from taking forcible possession of same or any part therefrom.

(D) For cost of the suit.

(E) For any other relief or reliefs to which the plaintiff be found entitled under the law and equity.”

3. The following substantial questions of law were framed by this Court vide order dated 30.01.2023:

1.Whether learned First Appellate court has committed perversity by holding that the sale deed executed by Ladura Ho in favour of the mother of the plaintiff, is barred by provisions of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, even though there is no such pleading of the parties?

2. Whether the First Appellate Court has committed gross illegality by observing that the plea of adverse possession can be used as a shield and not as a sword in view of principle of law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in paragraph 64 of the judgment in the case of Ravinder Kaur Grewal & Ors. vs. Manjit Kaur and Ors.

reported in 2019 (8) SCC 729

3. Whether learned First Appellate Court has committed perversity by excluding Exhibit 5, which is relevant material in arriving at the finding?

4. Whether learned First Appellate Court has committed gross illegality by holding that the suit is barred by limitation in view of the principle of law settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in paragraph 18 of the judgment in the case of Daya Singh & Anr. vs. Gurdev Singh (Dead) by LRs. and Ors. reported in 2010 (2) SCC 194

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed the facts from the trial court’s judgment and submitted that the plaintiff was claiming title by virtue of registered Sale-Deed No.3518 dated 08.08.1956 who claimed to have purchased the suit property from Ladura Ho and claimed to be in possession of the property. The property was purchased by Masih Dhani Tirkey, the mother of the plaintiff. The learned counsel submits that the record of rights was finally published on 10.08.1979 wherein the suit property was shown to be recorded in the name of “Ban Bibhag Bihar Sarkar” and in the remarks column, the same was shown to be in illegal possession of Masih Dhani Tirkey, the mother of the plaintiff since 1971. Learned counsel submits that prior to final publication of record of rights, the defendant-State had filed a case und