Jharkhand High Court
Hari Mohan Sao @ Hari Mohan Sahu vs Bangla Sao on 8 April, 2026
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
( 2026:JHHC:10476)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Second Appeal No. 288 of 2007
1. Hari Mohan Sao @ Hari Mohan Sahu, son of Harakh Sahu
2. Mahali Sao @ Mahali Sahu, son of Budhu Sao
3. Khurt Sao @ Khurtu Sahu, son of Sudhu Sao
4. Bhikhnu Sao @ Bhikhnu Sahu, son of Lachhu Sao
5. Domra Sao @ Domra Sahu son of Kamal Sao
All resident of village Kulabira, P.O. and P.S. Gumla, District-Gumla
......Appellants
Versus
1. Bangla Sao, son of Madho Sao, resident of village Kulabira, P.S. and
District Gumla (substituted Defendant No.1)
2. Bimla Devi wife of Basant Sahu
3. Kanchan Kumari daughter of Late basant Sahu
4. Ramesh Sao, son of sular Sao
All residents of village Kulabira, P.O. and P.S. Gumla, District Gumla
5. Peo Devi wife of Madhu Devi resident of village Kulabira, P.O and P.S.
Gumla, District-Gumla
6. Saro Devi wife of Ganesh Sao, resident of village Sagra, P.O. and P.S.
Sisai, District-Gumla
7. Nashia Devi wife of not known resident of village Dash Nagar, P.S.
Bikramjodpur, District Ayodhya.
................ Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---------
For the Appellants : Mr. Arun Kumar. Advocate
For the Respondents :
13/Dated: 08/04/2026
Heard Mr. Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants.
2. This second appeal has been filed being aggrieved and dissatisfied with judgment and decree dated 26.09.2007 (Decree sealed and signed on 06.10.2007) passed by Shri Ramesh Kumar Srivastava, the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Gumla in Title Appeal No. 22/1999 whereby the Title Appeal has been dismissed with cost confirming the judgment and decree dated 16.06.1999 (Decree sealed and signed on 01.07.1999) passed by learned Munsif, Gumla in Title Suit No. 64 of 1988.
3. As recorded in judgment of learned court the case of the plaintiffs was that the Plaintiffs/Appellant have instituted the Title Suit No. 64 of 1988 stating therein that lands pertaining to Khata No.04 having its plot Nos. 3102, 3103 and 3777 of village KULABIRA within P.S. & Distt. Gumla was recorded in the 1 ( 2026:JHHC:10476) name of Aklu Teli son of Charku Teli. The said Aklu Teli in stead of village Kulabira used to reside at village -Kasira of the same police station. A genealogy therefore was provided in para 3 of the plaint showing defendant No.1 Pio Devi to be the daughter of Aklu Teli. The plaintiffs and proforma defendants in view of the genealogy had claimed themselves to be the heirs and successor of brothers of Charku Teli. It is alleged that the suit lands after deported by Aklu Teli to village Kasira were being cultivated by the ancestors of the plaintiffs and proforma defendants who were still living at village Kulabira where the property situate. The plaint goes to show further that Aklu Teli was being given some products namely paddy etc. annually, It is further alleged that Aklu Teli died two years after R.S. operation, leaving behind his daughter Pio Devi who is defendant No. 1. Further case of the plaintiffs is that after death of Aklu Teli, the suit-property were inherited by the ancestors of the plaintiffs and proforma defendants and it were they who even performed the marriage of Pio Devi to Mahadeo Sao of their village Kulabira. She allegedly after her marriage started living with her husband. Further claim of the plaintiffs is that Aklu Teli died before passing of Hindu Law hence his daughter had no right and title over the suit-land. They also denied the possession of Pio Devi over suit-property. It is further alleged that Pio Devi having no title over subject matter sold it to Seva Sao, Bahura Sao, Bodhan Sao through registered sale-deed dated 20.05.1957 on consideration amount of only Rs. 1500/-. It is added further that when the purchasers afore-named had realized their mistake that Pio Devi in want of title or interests over the suit-land sold the same, they immediately surrendered and made over the subject matter in favour of plaintiff and their ancestors and since then the plaintiffs were in peaceful possession on it. It is admitted by the plaint that Pio Devi vide mutation case No. 65/1982-83 got the land mutated from the court of C.O., Gumla in her favour and she in revision from the court of Additional Collector vide case No.9/1986-87 has 2 ( 2026:JHHC:10476) succeeded in setting aside the order passed in appeal by D. C. L. R., Gumla who in its order had set aside the order of mutation passed in favour of Pio Devi by C.O., Gumla. The plaintiffs as such has assailed the revision order passed in respect of mutation by which Additional Collector, Gumla had set aside the order of appellate court of D.C.L.R. As such on the basis of their pleadings plaintiffs prayed relief for declaring order dated 27.02.1987 as illegal and void passed in mutation proceeding by Addl. Collector, Gumla. Furthermore they prayed for grant of permanent injunction restraining Pio Devi from the subject matter. A prayer for declaration of possession and title of the plaintiffs and proforma defendants also were taken.
4. The case of the defendants is that defendant as recorded in the judgment of the learned court that plaintiffs never were in possession of the suit property. Further case is that her father Aklu Sao died in year, 1945-46 leaving behind his widow Pano Kuar and she as being daughter of that Aklu Sao had succeeded the suit-land as such. It was further stated that Aklu Sao, her father in the life time of his father Charku Sao was living separately from his remaining brothers. He was separate in cultivation and dealing separately the lands in possession including suit property. As such the plea of property being in jointness is vehemently denied by her. The land in question was claimed to be exclusive property of her father Aklu Sao which has been recorded as Kaiyami land in revisional survey. Smt. Pano Kuar, the widow of Aklu Sao had been murdered in year, 1952-53 and prior to her death a proceeding under Section 145 of the Criminal procedure Code in respect of lands of R.S, Khata No.04 having its plot No.3777 of area 0.80 acres in which in place of her deceased mother, defendant Pio Devi and her Son Bangla Sao were substituted as Ist party while some of the plaintiffs and proforma defendants were IInd party. The said proceeding on 11.05.1953 has been decided in favour of plaintiff on contest declaring her possession over land in dispute. The plaintiffs 3 ( 2026:JHHC:10476) and proforma defendants against that very order passed in proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P. C. did not prefer to file suit in a competent Civil Court and as such impliedly had admitted her possession over subject matter. Further case of the defendant before the lower court was that she at the time of vesting of Zamindari in year, 1956 still was in possession over the subject matter and thereafter by virtue of Provisions of Bihar Land Reforms Act she was availing possession on it peacefully. By refuting contents in paras 788 of the plaint it is revealed in the written statement that her parents had no male issue hence after marriage she in their house at village Kulabira was looking after the works and nurturing them. Moreover, a criminal case for the offence under Section 379 in year, 1951 as well as the offence of criminal assault punishable under Sections 148, 323 & 324 were taken place between the parties and the same on established possession proved by her on property concerned were decided against the plaintiffs and in her favour. In her written statement she further denied execution of any sale-deed allegedly in favour of Seva Sao and others and also to the facts of surrender by them in favour of plaintiffs and proforma defendants. She as such has ruled out existence of sale-deed and alleged it to be concocted story for filing of the suit.
5. After appreciating the exhibits and evidences the learned Munsif has decided the said Title Suit No. 64/1988 by judgment dated 16.06.1999 whereby he has bene pleased to dismiss the said suit with cost.
6. Aggrieved with that the appellants/plaintiffs have preferred Title Appeal No. 22 of 1999 which was decided by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Gumla by judgment dated 26.09.2007 in which he has been pleased to dismiss the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the learned trial court.
7. Mr. Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the second appeal is having substantial question of law and in view of that this 4 ( 2026:JHHC:10476) appeal may kindly be admitted. He further submits that both the learned courts in deciding the said suit and appeal have erred in not considering the sale deed dated 20.05.1957 which was in favour of the Seva Rao and others executed by defendant no. 1. He further submits that this is substantial question of law and in view of that this second appeal may kindly be admitted.
8. On the basis of above pleadings the learned trial court for deciding the Title Suit No. 64/1988 has framed seven issues. Issue No. V was with regard to sale deed allegedly executed by Pio Devi in favour of Seva Sao and others dated 20.05.1957. For deciding the said issue the learned First Court has found that the plaintiffs have asserted that on 20.05.1957 Pio Devi has executed a sale deed in favour of Seva Sao and other the sons of Mahadeo Sao. After execution of sale deed there remained no title and possession of Pio Devi once the suit land was transferred. It was also alleged that when the purchasers knew about that she had no title then they have surrendered the land in favour of the plaintiffs. The learned trial Court in this background has found that deed has not been acted upon. He has found that the version of the defendant in this regard was that the plaintiffs never came in possession even for a single day. The report of the expert was marked as Exhibit-8 and the said report was found to be defective by the learned trial court. The reasons have been provided that the photo was not brought on record and photographer has not been examined. The report is based on report of these persons but that fact has not been stated in Exhibit-8. Both the photographs were not found to be equal. The learned trial court has found that signature was only of Ranjana Kumari but Ext. 8 does not contain signature of deponent and Deena Nath Thakur. There was no direct evidence regarding execution of alleged sale deed. The learned trial court has found that in relief portion also there was no relief regarding execution of that sale deed and defendant has asserted that sale deed has been impersonated and on the basis of that deed 5 ( 2026:JHHC:10476) purchasers have not acquired title and possession over the land in suit and there was no question of surrender in favour of plaintiffs. The learned trial court has further found that the said alleged deed was illegal, invalid and in- operative and not binding upon the defendant and accordingly, that issue was decided against the plaintiffs. Thereafter the learned trial court has decided further issues dismissing the suit by judgment dated 16.06.1999.
9. Aggrieved with the said judgment the Plaintiffs/Appellants preferred Title Appeal No. 22 of 1999. In para 8 of the said judgment of the learned appellate has framed the points to decide the said appeal.
10. The learned appellate court has found that the suit property of Khata No. 4 appertaining to three plots mentioned in paras 1 and 2 of the plaint factually was recorded in the name of Aklu Teli who admittedly was the father of Pio Devi. The plaintiffs/appellants in support of being property in jointness produced no documentary evidence therefore on the basis of oral evidence that fact was to be find out. The learned appellate court has appreciated the evidence of P.W.5 namely, Kutalu Sao and found that in para 10 on oath he has admitted the fact that Aklu Teli was living separately from his remaining others and in para 12 this witness has made his ignorance about any sale deed executed by Pio Devi allegedly in favour of Seva Sao and others.
11. The learned appellate court has further appreciated the evidence of P.W.9, P.W. 10 and P.W. 14 and appreciating all the evidences of the aforesaid P.Ws the learned appellate court has found that the factum of property in jointness even was refuted by the witnesses appeared on behalf of plaintiffs. The father of Pio Devi was recorded tenant of subject matter and he was living separately from his rests brothers and they were therefore established well. The villagers of the locality as that of the parties examined as D.Ws. 4 and 5 also have denied the existence of lands in dispute in jointness and in view of that the learned appellate court has found that Aklu Teli who was the father of 6 ( 2026:JHHC:10476) Pio Devi, before his death was living separately and the property left by him detailed in para-1 of the plaint was his own separate property and accordingly, that point was decided against the plaintiffs/appellants and in favour of respondent-defendant by the learned appellate court.
12. In view of above facts, the court finds that both the learned courts on the point of sale deed for property appreciated the entire evidence and thereafter have passed aforesaid judgements. There is no illegality in the said judgments. Two courts concurrent findings are there. It is well settled that in the second appeal the evidences are not required to be appreciated and only on substantial question of law, the second appeal can be admitted. . There is no perversity in the judgements of both the learned courts. No substantial question of law is involved in this second appeal and sitting under section 100 of the C.P.C., the High Court is not required to admit this second appeal in absence of any substantial question of law and accordingly, this second appeal is dismissed. Pending, I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dt. 08.04.2026 Satyarthi/-A.F.R. 7