The court confirmed the principle that once a plaintiff establishes a high degree of probability, the onus shifts to the defendant to prove otherwise.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KHATIM REZA ORAL ORDER

6 02-02-2026 Heard Mr. Sajid Salim Khan, learned senior counsel (SC 25) for the appellants-State and Mr. Pushkar Narayan Shahi, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Samir Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents.

Interlocutory Application No.01 of 2025

2. This interlocutory application has been filed by the appellants under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the present appeal.

3. Heard learned senior counsel for both the sides.

4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and ground mentioned therein, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

5. Interlocutory Application No.01 of 2025 stands allowed.

Second Appeal No.312 of 2025

6. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree of affirmance dated 16.11.2024 passed by the District Judge, X, Bhagalpur, in Title Appeal No.33 of 2011 whereby judgment and decree dated 28.02.2011 passed by the Sub Judge, VII, Bhagalpur, in Title Suit No.208 of 1998 has been upheld.

7. From the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the materials on record as well as the judgments and decree of the Courts below, it is quite clear that the appellate Court, which is the final Court of facts, after considering the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced by them, came to a clear finding that the plaintiffs have established and proved their right, title and interest on the basis of the documentary evidence as well as oral evidence. It is further held that Ext.5 (Return) filed by the ex-landlord shows that the father of the plaintiff no.2 was the raiyat of the aforesaid disputed land under Bihar Land Reforms Act , 1950, and, accordingly, rent was fixed in favour of the father of the plaintiff no. 2, namely, Kedar Sah in the year 1955, just after vesting of zamindari and the government had accepted him as raiyat of the said land, and, accordingly, the government issued rent receipt on 13.04.1955 which continued till the year 1994. Before vesting of zamindari, the ex-landlord settled the suit land through Hukumnama (Ext.- 4) in favour of father of plaintiff no.2, followed by the rent receipts (Ext.-2/A and 2/B) issued by the ex-intermediary and at the time of vesting of the Estate, the ex-landlord submitted Return (Ext.-5) in favour of Kedar Sah (father of plaintiff no. 2) and the Return was accepted by the State. However, an encroachment proceeding was initiated by the Anchal Adhikari in the year 1994-95, which also reveals that the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit land.

8. On the application of the father of plaintiff no. 2, the information report (Ext.1/A) was supplied by the Circle Officer, Jagdishpur, to the father of plaintiff no. 2 on 05.08.1995 with regard to the suit land which shows that the information was given by the Circle Officer, Jagdishpur, that the rent receipt was issued on 09.02.1960 and 15.08.1963 and the landlord of the suit land was J. M. Kanti. The said report was compared by the then Clerk of the Office of Anchal Adhikari, Jagdishpur.

Thus, the claim of the plaintiffs over the said land clearly proves by Ext.-1/A, which was issued by the Circle Officer, Jagdishpur.

9. The learned Appellate Court also perused Exhibit 1, which is the report of the Pleader Commissioner dated 09.07.1996, which shows that an old building was found on the suit land situated in Bikhanpur, Plot No. 783, Area 27 decimals. The witnesses such as P.Ws. 2 3, 4 as well as other witnesses have supported the claim of the plaintiffs and it proves that the plaintiffs w