Jharkhand High Court
M/S Shri Valley Refractories Ltd vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Deputy ... on 29 April, 2025
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
( 2025:JHHC:12967 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
F.A. No. 269 of 2023
M/s Shri Valley Refractories Ltd., having its registered office at 40B,
Vivekanand Road, Kolkata - 7, through its Director Sapan Sen Gupta,
S/o Kanan Kumar Sen Gupta, Resident of 92/2-2, Behind Durga
Mandir, Taldanga Housing Colony, P.O.: Sarsa Pahari (Chirkunda),
P.S.: Chirkunda, District: Dhanbad ... ... Plaintiff/Appellant
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad,
P.O. & P.S.: Dhanbad, District: Dhanbad
2. The Addl. Collector, Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S.: Dhanbad, District:
Dhanbad
3. The Circle Officer, Nirsa, P.O. & P.S.: Nirsa, District: Dhanbad
... ... Defendants/Respondents
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Appellant : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, SC I
---
JUDGMENT
CAV on 19.02.2025 Pronounced on 29 .04.2025
1. This first appeal has been filed against the Judgement dated 22.06.2023 and decree sealed and signed on 30.06.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Sr. Div.)-X, Dhanbad in Original Suit No. 258 of 2022 whereby and whereunder the suit has been dismissed.
2. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for the following reliefs:
(a) For a decree for declaration of proposed plaintiff right, title, interest and confirmation of possession over schedule land, alternatively, if proposed plaintiff be found dispossessed lis-pendens, then recovery of khas possession thereof.
(b) For a decree for rectification of Record of right in the name of proposed plaintiff after deleting the name of "ANABAD BIHAR SARKAR" (Now Jharkhand), the proposed defendants.
(c) For a decree for permanent injunction restraining proposed defendants their men, agents and servants from interfering in any manner with proposed plaintiff settled possession and/or from parting with any portion of the ( 2025:JHHC:12967 ) suit land by the proposed defendants on the strength of such wrong and frivolous entries in record of rights.
(d) For cost of the suit.
(e) For any other and further relief or reliefs for which the proposed plaintiff entitled to.
Arguments of the appellant
3. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the suit was decided ex-parte. Neither the defendants appeared in the case, nor they filed their written statement, nor they cross-examined any of the witnesses of the plaintiff. He submitted that the suit was filed on the basis of registered deeds of sale executed in favour of the plaintiff. The suit was filed for declaration of title and also confirmation of possession and alternative prayer was also made that if the plaintiff is found dispossessed, it will be put in possession of the property.
4. The learned counsel submitted that the cause of action arose when an entry in the record of rights came to the knowledge of the plaintiff in the year 2021 that the property has been recorded in the name of Anabad Bihar Sarkar showing illegal possession of the plaintiff. He submitted that the learned court has recorded possession in favour of the plaintiff and the respondents have not filed any cross objection or cross appeal in connection with the finding with regard to possession.
5. The learned counsel further submitted that the finding of the learned Trial Court is essentially in one paragraph wherein the learned Trial Court has referred to Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act and also recorded that the plaintiff has not proved the title of his vendor. The learned counsel submitted that the title of his vendor was not in dispute inasmuch as no written statement was filed. The title of the vendor was clearly mentioned in the sale deeds which were exhibited before the learned Trial Court and since the title of the vendor was not in dispute and the defendants never filed written statements claiming title or contested the title of the plaintiff, therefore there was no occasion for the learned Trial Court to dismiss 2 ( 2025:JHHC:12967 ) the suit. He has also submitted that the entry in record of rights by itself does not create or extinguish any title. He has relied upon the Judgment passed by the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Patna High Court reported in 1987 PLJR 354 (FB) (Paritosh Maity and etc. -vs- Ghasiram Maity and another). He also submitted that the law is equally well settled that Khatiyan by itself is not a title of the property and at best, it can be a document of possession.
6. It is submitted that it is well-settled that Khatiyan is not a document of title. Reference has been made to judgment reported in 2007 (11) SCC 736 Para 22 (Narayan Prasad Agarwal (D) by Lirs- vs-State of MP).
7. It is also submitted that it is well settled that registered deed has presumption of correctness. Reference has been made to the judgment reported in (2006)5 SCC 353 (Prem Singh -Vs- Birbalj and 2007(14) Scale 627 (Asokan -Vs- Lakhmi Kutty & ors.)
8. The learned counsel submitted that otherwise also, the suit was wrongly dismissed inasmuch as at least the declaration of possession in favour of the plaintiff which was decided by the learned Trial Court ought to have reflected in the decree.
9. The learned counsel also referred to the interlocutory application seeking to adduce additional evidence and submitted that some of the deeds of the predecessors have been sought to be brought on record through the interlocutory application which are registered documents. The learned counsel submitted that the additional evidence is sought to be adduced only by way of abundant precaution, however the evidence which were produced before the learned Trial Court were enough to decree the suit.
Arguments of the Respondents
10. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents opposed the prayer and submitted that the plaintiff has to make out a case for seeking the reliefs and merely because the defendants did not file the written statement or did not cross-examine the witnesses of the plaintiff, same by itself is not sufficient to decree a suit. He has submitted that entry in the record of rights has great evidentiary value 3 ( 2025:JHHC:12967 ) and there is a presumption in favour of the entry and the plaintiff did not lead any evidence to rebut the said presumption.
11. He relied upon the Judgment passed by this Court reported in (2003) 2 JLJR 708 (Dwarika Sonar and others -vs- Most. Bilguli and others) to submit that the suit itself was barred by limitation. The record of rights in the instant case was published way back in the year 2007 and the suit was filed in the year 2022. He submitted that it was the duty of the learned Trial Court to take into consideration the point of limitation suo moto, even if no written statement was filed. He referred to Section 3 of the Indian Limitation Act. The learned counsel also submitted that since the plaintiff failed to prove the title of the property, therefore the Trial Court has rightly not declared the title of the plaintiff.
Rejoinder arguments of the appellant.
12. In response, the learned counsel for the appellant referred to the Judgment cited by the respondents and submitted that the date of knowledge with regard to incorrect entry is an important fact and this aspect of the matter was also taken care of in the aforesaid judgment. He submitted that the specific case of the plaintiff is that he came to know about the wrong entry in the record of rights only in the year 2021 and immediately thereafter, the suit was filed.
13. The learned counsel also submitted that the plaintiff did not avail the remedy under Section 87 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act and filed the suit and the suit is not barred by law and this aspect of the matter has also been dealt with in the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the respondents. He submitted that judgment cited by the learned counsel for the respondents, if applied to the facts of this case, would help the appellant.
Case of the Plaintiff/Appellant
14. The case of the plaintiff as pleaded in the plaint, in brief, is that the lands situated in District: Dhanbad, P.S.: Nirsa, Mouzah: Merah, Mouza No.: 251, appertaining to C.S. Khata No. 20, 97, 17, 33, 14, 17, 14, 17, 20, 30, 82, 14, 17, 179, 62, 17, 159, 18, 174, 17, 114, 117, 51, 114, 67, 43, 30, 194, 33, 193, 42, 198, 101, 47, 116, 27, 26, 192, 4 ( 2025:JHHC:12967 ) 44/1, 174/25 and 165, 51, 14 consisting several plots were purchased by M/s Valley Refractories Ltd. vide Registered Sale Deed No. 1584 dated 04.03.1994, 10541 dated 03.09.1983, 10213 dated 11.04.1972, 10542 dated 03.09.1983, 7498 dated 22.03.1972, 10467 dated 01.09.1983, 10466 dated 01.09.1983, 11016 dated 22.11.1985, 12294 dated 08.06.1972. The details of the property so purchased are morefully described in Schedule 'A' of the plaint. Subsequently the said Valley Refractories Ltd. came in peaceful and uninterrupted possession over the Schedule 'A' lands. The erstwhile Valley Refractories Ltd. changed the name of the company as Shri Valley Refractories Ltd.
15. The plaintiff further stated that in the recent R.S. operation, out of plaintiff's aforesaid property as described in Schedule 'A', C.S. Khata No. 20, 117, 179, 193, 192, 101, 114, 25, 17, 43, 159 have been renumbered as R.S. Khata No. 373 and 374. C.S. Plot No. 307 has been renumbered as 1049/2522. C.S. Plot No. 295, 296, 297 and 298 have been renumbered as R.S. Plot No. 1100, C.S. Plot No. 275 has been renumbered as R.S. Plot No. 1040, C.S. Plot No. 277 has been renumbered as R.S. Plot No. 1038, C.S. Plot No. 280 has been renumbered as R.S. Plot No. 1037, C.S. Plot No. 396 has been renumbered as R.S. Plot No. 958, C.S. Plot No. 513 has been renumbered as R.S. Plot No. 957, C.S. Plot No. 400 has been renumbered as R.S. Plot No. 947, C.S. Plot No. 402 has been renumbered as R.S. Plot No. 949, C.S. Plot No. 405 has been renumbered as R.S. Plot No. 965. Similarly, C.S. Plot No. 445, 447, 450, 498, 499, 501, 497, 500, 500 of C.S. Khata has been renumbered as R.S. Plot No. 945 under R.S. Khata No. 373, C.S. Plot No. 453 and 452 of C.S. Khata No. 17 have been renumbered as R.S. Plot No. 943 of R.S. Khata No. 373. C.S. Plot No. 483 has been renumbered as R.S. Plot No. 928, C.S. Plot No. 483 has been renumbered as R.S. Plot No. 929 under R.S. Khata No. 373. C.S. Plot No. 293 & 291 of C.S. Khata No. 43 has been renumbered as R.S. Plot No. 1051 of R.S. Khata No.
374. The details of the property mentioned above are morefully 5 ( 2025:JHHC:12967 ) described in Schedule 'B' of the plaint, which have been recorded as Anabad Bihar Sarkar in the Revisional Survey Operation.
16. The plaintiff stated that he was not aware of such wrong entries and has only got the knowledge on the last week of October, 2021 when they enquired about and found that in recent Revisional Survey Operation, its properties as mentioned in Schedule 'B' of the plaint has been wrongly recorded in the name of Anabad Bihar Sarkar (Now Jharkhand) and accordingly on 01.11.2021, plaintiff applied for certified copy of the Revisional Survey Khatiyan and obtained the copies thereof on 18.11.2021.
17. The plaintiff further stated that the entries made in the name of Anabad Bihar Sarkar (now Jharkhand) in respect of aforesaid landed property, morefully described in Schedule 'B' of the plaint, are absolutely incorrect and as such, the Record of Rights in respect of R.S. Khata Nos. 373 and 374 bearing several plot numbers are required to be rectified in the name of the plaintiff.
18. The plaintiff further stated that since there was serious cloud cast upon the title of plaintiff, plaintiff intended to file a suit for declaration for rectification of Record of Rights against the defendants.
19. As an abundant pre-occupation, the plaintiff has also sent a legal notice under Section 80 of C.P.C. on 25.03.2022 through plaintiff's advocate Sri Somnath Choudhary to the defendants.
20. The plaintiff stated that the plaintiff is also entitled for permanent injunction restraining defendants, their men, agents and servant from interfering in any manner with plaintiff's settled possession and/or from parting with any portion of the suit land by the defendants on the strength of such wrong and frivolous entries in Record of Rights.
21. The cause of action of the proposed suit arose at Chirkunda under Police Station Nirsa, within the jurisdiction of the Court on 28.10.2021 when proposed plaintiff came to know the facts that the land is wrongly recorded in the Record of Right (Khatiyan) as Anabad Bihar Sarkar (now Jharkhand), also on 11.11.2021, when proposed 6 ( 2025:JHHC:12967 ) plaintiff has applied and also on 18.11.2021 when proposed plaintiff obtained the certified copy of the said revisional record of rights and lastly on 25.03.2022, when legal notice under Section 80 of C.P.C. was sent to the defendants and thereafter, on all subsequent dates.
22. As per the impugned judgment recorded at Para-4 and 7 and also from the available records of the case, after admission of the suit, summons were issued to the defendants by way of Nazarat, registered post and also by way of substituted service of summons (newspaper publication). As a result of which, the case was proceeded ex-parte against the defendants and an ex-parte hearing was initiated vide order dated 01.03.2023. The learned Trial Court further recorded that the defendants have not contested the suit by filling written statement.
23. The learned Trial Court framed one issue which reads as under:
"Whether the plaintiff has successfully been able to prove its case by adducing cogent and reliable evidence or not?"
24. In course of trial, the plaintiff adduced and examined two witnesses in order to prove and substantiate its case. P.W.- 1 is Sapan Sen Gupta, who is Director of the plaintiff and P.W-2 is Dhananjay Dubey. The plaintiff produced and exhibited the following documents as documentary evidence which are as follows:
Ext.- P-1: Online copy of certificate of incorporation of the plaintiff pursuant to change of its name. Ext.- P-2: Advocate notice of Ld. Lawyer Somnath Chatterjee Ext.- P-3: Original postal receipt Ext.- P-3/1: Original postal receipt Ext.- P-3/2: Original postal receipt Ext.- P-4: Notice of Survey Office dated 16.11.2021 Ext.- P-4/1: Notice of Survey Office dated 01.11.2021 Ext.- P-4/2: Notice of Survey Office dated 16.11.2021 Ext.- P-5: Certified copy of R.S. Khatiyan Khata No.373. Ext.- P-5/1: Certified copy of R.S. Khatiyan Khata No.374.
Sale deed and date Exhibit 1584 dated 04.03.1994 P6/5 10541 dated 03.09.1983 P6/8 10213 dated 11.04.1972 P6/7 10542 dated 03.09.1983 P6/4 7 ( 2025:JHHC:12967 ) 7498 dated 22.03.1972 P6/6 10467 dated 01.09.1983 P6/3 10466 dated 01.09.1983 P6/2 11016 dated 22.11.1985 P6/1 12294 dated 08.06.1972 P6 Exhibits (Rent receipts) Period of payment of rent Exhibit P7/3 Period from 2007 - 2008 to 2015-2016 Exhibit P7/4 Period from 2010-2011 to 2013-2014 Exhibit P7/5 Period from 2004-2005 to 2005-2006 Exhibit P7/8 Period from 2007-2008 to 2015- 2016 Exhibit P7/7 Period from 2004-2005 to 2006-2007 Exhibit P7/2 Period from 2015-2016 to 2016-2017 Exhibit P7/1 Period from 2007-2008 to 2010-2011 Exhibit P7 Period from 2011 - 2012 to 2013-2014 Findings of the learned Trial Court
25. The learned Trial Court recorded its findings at Paragraph-8 which reads as under:
"8. Now, I have to consider and determine that whether the plaintiff has successfully been able to prove its case by adducing cogent and reliable evidence or not.
The plaintiff M/s Shri Valley Refractories Limited has filed this instant suit against the defendants who are the State of Jharkhand and others. The suit has been filed by the Director of the company Sri Sapan Sen Gupta, S/o Kanan Kumar Sen Gupta. The registered office of the company is in Kolkata. It is for the confirmation of title and possession over the suit property mentioned in the schedule of the plaint and for the permanent injunction as well as rectification of record of right which is in the name of Anabad Bihar Sarkar. All the process has been exhausted for the appearance of the defendants, but the defendants remained absent and the suit proceeded ex-parte against them. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff has brought two witnesses on the record along with several documents which have been marked as Ext.-P-1 to P-7/7 on record. The certified copies of sale deeds have been filed by the plaintiff which are sale deed no. 12294 dated 24.04.1972, Sale-deed no. 11016 dated 22.11.1985, Sale-deed no. 10466 dated 01.09.1983, Sale-deed no. 10467 dated 01.09.1983, Sale-deed no. 10542 dated 01.09.1983, Sale-deed no. 1584 dated 04.03.1994, Sale-deed no. 7498 dated 22.09.1972, Sale-deed no. 10213 dated 11.04.1972, Sale-deed no. 10541 dated 03.09.1973 8 ( 2025:JHHC:12967 ) alongwith the original rent receipts of different dates which have been marked exhibits on the record. On perusal of the above documents, the court found that the sale deeds were executed by the vendors Basudeo Agarwala, Gajanand Agarwala, Bagranj Prasad Agarwala, all sons of Kishun Lal Agarwala and Smt. Mani Devi Agarwala wife of Kishun Lal Agarwala in favour of Valley Refractories Private Limited, a Private Limited Company registered under the Indian Companies Act having its registered office at Vivekanand Road, Kolkata. Whereas the vendors were the only partners of the said partnership business under M/s Valley Refractories Limited and were the exclusive owner of the business. The consideration amount was paid to the party in cash and partly in share. The sale deed was executed by way of absolute sale into the said purchaser. The certified copy of the other sale deed is also filed on record in which the vendors are same and sold the land through registered sale-deeds to the Valley Refractories Limited. Several rent receipts are also filed by the plaintiff which are in the name of M/s Valley Refractories Limited. One certified copy of continuous khatiyan of 373 and 374 has been filed by the plaintiff of different khesra in which the name of the raiyat has been recorded as Anabad Bihar Sarkar and the plaintiff is shown as in possession of the said khesra. The document is marked as Ext.- P-5 & P-5/1 One information document has been also filed by the plaintiff which shows the old Khata renumbered as the new one which is also marked as Ext. - P-4, P-4/1 & P-4/2. The question arises whether the land sold in the name of the vendee Shri Valley Refractories Limited from the vendors were the rightful owner of the land and had the title to sale out the aforesaid land in favour of the plaintiff?
In the instant case, the plaintiff has not filed any supported document which proves that the vendors had right, title over the suit land to transfer the same in favour of the plaintiff. The P.W.-1 is the Director of the partnership business Shri Valley Refractories Limited, who in his chief-examination mentioned that the disputed land is under Mouza Medha no. 251, C.S. Khata No. 20, 97, 17, 33, 14, 17, 14, 17, 20, 30, 82, 14, 17, 179, 62, 17, 159, 18, 174, 17, 114, 117, 51, 114, 67, 43, 30, 194, 33, 193, 42, 198, 101, 47, 116, 27, 26, 192, 44/1, 174/25 and 165, 51, 14. After purchase, the plaintiff remain in peaceful possession over the property. In 2014, the company has changed its name as Shri Valley Refractories Limited. The said property has been recorded in the name of Anabad Bihar Sarkar in C.S. Khata No. 373 and 374. Another witness P.W.2 has stated the same in his examination-in-chief. After perusal of the documents, the court found that the sale-deed is of year 1972, 1983, 1985 and 1994. But no document has been filed as the right, title and interest of the said suit land from where it has been inherited or acquired by the vendors. There is lack of proper document which proves the plaintiff case. The Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 was a 9 ( 2025:JHHC:12967 ) landmark legislation in the sense that it ended colonial land governance system (Jamindari system) by abolishing all intermediary (tenure holders) between states and tenant and brought state and tenant in direct relation. It provided for the transference to the state of interest of the proprietor and tenure holders in the land of the mortgagees and lessees of such interest including interest in trees, forest, fishery, Jalkar, ferries, hats, bazar, mines and minerals. All the intermediary interest except Mundari Khut Kattidar tenancy and Bhuinhari tenure vested in state. Once an Estate vest in the State, the various interest of the intermediaries innumerated therein are also vested in the state absolutely free from all encumbrances, barring the raiyati or under raiyati interest. As per Section 4(h), the Collector shall have power to make enquiries in respect of any transfer including the settlement or lease of any land comprised in such estate or tenure or any kind of transfer that it was made at any time after the first day of January, 1946 with the object of defeating the provision of this act. The plaintiff's right, title and interest over the suit land has not been proved on record. Though the plaintiff is in possession of the schedule land as per the continuous khatiyan, but the said schedule land is recorded in the name of Anabad Bihar Sarkar as a Raiyat."
26. The learned Trial Court held that the plaintiff failed to prove its case and dismissed the suit. The suit was dismissed inspite of having been held that the plaintiff is in possession of the schedule land as per the continuous khatiyan, with further finding that the schedule land is recorded in the name of Anabad Bihar Sarkar as a Raiyat. Additional evidence at 1st appellate stage before this Court
27. In the present first appeal, the plaintiff/appellant has filed I.A. No.2090 of 2025 under Order XLI Rule 27(1)(b) of CPC seeking to adduce additional evidence to bring on record the earlier Registered Sale Deeds to show the title of the vendors of the plaintiff mentioned in Para-8 of the Interlocutory Application and to show the acquisition of the title by the vendors of the plaintiff. The appellant has stated in the interlocutory application that the recital of the aforesaid sale deeds bears the descriptions regarding the acquisition of title of the vendors of the plaintiff. The appellant has further stated that the sale deeds executed by the vendors have already been marked as Exhibits - P-6, P-6/1, P-6/2, P-6/3, P-6/4, P-6/5, P-6/6, P-6/7 and P-6/8 during trial of the case and the additional evidences have been filed by way of 10 ( 2025:JHHC:12967 ) abundant precaution and the materials available on record are enough to pronounce the judgement in favour of the plaintiff.
28. The prayer for additional evidence has been opposed by the respondents.
Findings of this Court
29. Through I.A. No. 2090 of 2025 seeking to adduce additional evidence, the appellant has stated that the recital of the sale-deeds which have been brought on record i.e. Ext.-P-6, Ext.-P-6/1 to Ext.-P- 6/8 bears descriptions regarding acquisition of title of the vendors of the plaintiff and the connected/supporting deeds which are sought to be brought on record are as under: -
Sl. Sale Deed No. and Connecting/supporting
No. Date deed, which is being
brough on record
1. No. 10467 dated No. 748 dated 15.01.1971 In sale deed No. 748 dated 15.01.1971, the
01.09.1983 (Ext. vendor is one Umapad Chakraborty, S/o
P-6/3) Kritivash Chakraborty, R/o Thana Chirkunda,
District Dhanbad and the purchaser is
Gajanand Agrawal, S/o Kishan Lal Agrawal,
proprietors of Valley Refractories, Chirkunda, District Dhanbad. The perusal of the sale-deed so produced through the additional evidence does not reveal as to how Umapad Chakraborty derived title over the property.
However, the sale deed refers to sale deed no.
6305 of the year 1954.
2. No. 12294 dated No. 870 dated 27.01.1970 Sale No. 870 dated 27.01.1970 was executed 24.04.1972 (Ext. No. 871 dated 27.01.1970 by Gajanand Agrawal in favour of M/s Valley P-6) No. 872 dated 20.02.1970 Refractories represented through its partners Vasudev Agrawal, Gajanand Agrawal, Bajrang Agrawal, all S/o Kishan Lal Agrawal and Smt. Mani Devi, W/o Kishan Lal Agrawal. The sale deed refers to sale deed no. 18992 of the year 1969.
Sale deed No. 871 dated 27.01.1970 was executed by Kishan Lal Agrawal in favour of Valley Refractories represented through its aforesaid partners. The sale deed refers to sale deed no. 19288 of the year 1966; 11957 of the year 1967; 2469 of 1965; 18999 of 1967;
19000 of 1967; 19001 of 1967.
Sale deed No. 872 dated 20.02.1970 was executed by Vasudev Prasad Agrawal, S/o Kishan Lal Agrawal in favour of Valley Refectories represented through the aforesaid partners. The sale deed refers to sale deed no.
11( 2025:JHHC:12967 ) 299 of 1970; 308 and 498 of 1970.
3. No. 10542 dated No. 9050 dated This sale deed no. 9050 dated 22.04.1970 was 01.09.1983 (Ext. 22.04.1970 executed by Madan Bandhopadhyay, Satish P-6/4) Bandhopadhyay in favour of Basudev Agrawal, S/o Kishan Lal Agrawal. The sale deed refers to two sale deeds both dated 21.04.1970.
4. No. 10466 dated No. 757 dated 15.01.1971 Translated copy has not been furnished.
01.09.1983 (Ext.
P-6/2)
30. It has been further asserted that the registered sale-deeds by which the plaintiff has claimed suit land is already on record and recitals of which bears the descriptions regarding acquisition of title of the vendors of the plaintiff and it has been stated that the connecting sale deeds could not be brought on record and for want of the connecting sale deeds, the learned Trial Court held that the plaintiff could not show how the vendors of the plaintiff acquired the suit land and has dismissed the suit despite holding that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property. This Court finds that no explanation has been furnished from the side of the appellant in the interlocutory application as to why the previous sale-deeds sought to be brought on record through additional evidence were not produced at the stage of trial. However, the appellant is invoking Order XLI Rule 27(1)(b) of CPC.
31. This Court is of the considered view that the documents which have been produced by way of additional evidence are not required for pronouncing the judgment by this Court, inasmuch as, even in the said sale deeds exhibited by the plaintiff before the learned Trial Court, the genesis of the title of the vendors has been mentioned.
32. However, this Court is of the considered view that this Court does not require the documents produced through interlocutory application by adducing additional evidence to pronounce the judgment in the present case.
33. Consequently, I.A. No. 2090 of 2025 seeking to adduce additional evidence is dismissed.
12( 2025:JHHC:12967 )
34. Plaintiff claims right, title & possession over the suit property, by virtue of registered Deeds of Sale, executed in their favour, details of same have been given in 4th Column of Schedule A of the Plaint. The plaintiff claims that the suit property has been recorded in Revisional Survey Record of Rights, more fully described in Schedule 'B' of the plaint, and claims to have been recorded in the name of Anabad Bihar Sarkar and further claims that illegal possession of the plaintiff/their predecessors-in-interest has been shown with respect to R.S Khata Nos. 373 and 374 as mentioned in Schedule B to the plaint. It is the case of the plaintiff that illegal entry was not within the knowledge of the plaintiff and it came to their knowledge in the last week of October, 2021; plaintiff applied on 1st of November, 2021 for obtaining the certified copy of the Revisional Survey Khatiyan and got the same on 18.11.2021; the plaintiff sent Legal Notice to the defendants U/s 80 of C.P.C on 25th of March, 2022 and thereafter instituted Original Suit No. 258/2022 against the defendants, for declaration of right, title, interest and confirmation of possession over the suit land and also for rectification of the Record of Rights in the name of the plaintiff, after deleting the name of 'Anabad Bihar Sarkar'.
35. The proceeding was ex-parte. Plaintiff is a company and is registered under the Companies Act and, in this regard, the relevant documents have been brought on record by the plaintiff, which has been marked as Ext. P-1. for proving its right, title & possession the plaintiff exhibited registered Sale Deeds, which were marked as P-6 to P - 6/8 and details of same have been given in 4th Column of Schedule 'A'. The plaintiff exhibited rent receipts marked Ext. P-7 to Ext. P - 7/8. The plaintiff also exhibited Notice of Survey Office dated 16.11.2021, 01.11.2021 & 16.11.2021 as Ext. P-4 to Ext. P - 4/2. The plaintiff brought on record the Revisional Survey Khatiyan of Khata No. 373 & 374, which were marked as Ext. P-5 & P - 5/1. The Legal Notice sent by the plaintiff was also brought on record and was exhibited as Ext. P-2. The original Postal Receipts were also brought on record and marked as Ext. P-3 & P-3/1.
13( 2025:JHHC:12967 )
36. The learned Trial Court dismissed the suit, mainly on the ground that plaintiff has not been able to prove the title of their vendors, from whom they had purchased the suit property and there is lack of proper documents, which could prove the case of the plaintiff. learned Trial Court further held that the plaintiff is in possession of the Schedule land, as reflected in Continuous Khatiyan, but the same has been recorded in the name of 'Anabad Bihar Sarkar'.
37. It is the specific case of the appellant/plaintiff that the learned Trial Court while passing impugned judgment & decree failed to examine the recital of the sale deeds, by virtue of which the plaintiff claims suit property, which depicts the details of the vendors of the plaintiff, from whom property was purchased. Recital of the Registered Sale Deeds which have been exhibited by the plaintiff, in support of claim of right, title & possession has been ignored and in absence of same, finding has been recorded that plaintiff has failed to prove acquisition of title by their vendors, which is nothing but perverse, warranting interference by this Hon'ble Court.
38. It is further case of the appellant that the law is well settled that recital of the registered sale deeds is admissible evidence, particularly when State despite valid service of notice neither filed any contesting Written Statement nor examined any witness or cross-examined the witnesses of the plaintiff. The learned Trial Court had no occasion to brush aside the Registered Sale Deeds, by virtue of which the plaintiff claims title over the suit property, in absence of Written Statement or any denial of acquisition of title of the plaintiff. The learned Trial Court committed serious errors of law, as despite recording that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property, dismissed the suit, without examining that the plaintiff was entitled for relief of possession. The learned Trial Court without close scrutiny of provisions of Bihar Land Reforms Act only on surmises & conjectures, has recorded finding that plaintiff has failed to prove right, title & interest over the suit land, which is nothing but perverse.
39. It is the case of the appellant that the suit land was never vested in the Government and has remained in possession of vendors of the 14 ( 2025:JHHC:12967 ) plaintiff, who in turn had purchased the suit property from their vendors and rent was assessed in the name of vendors of the plaintiff.
40. It is also the case of the appellant that the illegal entry of the suit property in Revisional Survey Record of Rights in the name of 'Anabad Bihar Sarkar' was not within the knowledge of the plaintiff and it came in its knowledge in the year October 2021 and immediately thereafter certified copies of Record of Rights were obtained and suit was instituted for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and for rectification in the Record of Rights, which is well within the time, prescribed under the law.
41. It is the case of the appellant that the learned Trial Court failed to take into account which depicts that Basudeo Agarwala, vendor of the plaintiff had purchased the land from Smt. Shantabala Devya, vide 13846/1971. Similarly, the learned Trial Court failed to examine recital of the Sale Deed dated 1st September, 1983 (P-6/2), which depicts that Gajanan Agarwala (vendor of the plaintiff) had purchased 0.01 decimal of land of Mouza: Merah, vide Registered Sale Deed No. 325 dated 15.02.1971 from Prafulla Kumar Chakraborty and 45 decimals of land of Plot No. 275 & 480 from Umapad Chakraborty, by virtue Registered Sale Deed No. 748/1971. The learned Trial Court did not examine the recital of Sale Deed No. 10542 dated 01.09.1983 (Ext. P-6/4), which depicts that vendor of the plaintiff namely Basudeo Agarwala had purchased the Plot No. 451, measuring 12 decimals of land alongwith other plots from Gauri Shankar Hazra vide Registered Sale Deed No. 1360/1970 and Plot No. 445, 450, 497 along with other plots of Mouza Merah vide Registered Sale Deed No. 9070/1970 from Madan Bandopadhyay and Plot No. 300 & 301 along with other plots from Nakul Bauri and others, by virtue of Registered Sale Deed No. 9287 of 1970 and Plot No. 395 & 398 from Haltu Mandal and others vide Registered Sale Deed No. 508/1970. The learned Trial Court also failed to consider the recital of the Registered Sale Deed No. 10466 dated 01.09.1983, which would depict that Bajrang Prasad (Vendor of the plaintiff) had purchased 86 ½ decimals of land in Mouza Merah from Baidhyanath Chandra and others vide 15 ( 2025:JHHC:12967 ) Registered Sale Deed No. 787/1971. The learned Trial Court also failed to examine the recital of the Sale Deed No. 10541 dated 3rd September, 1983 (Ext. P-6/8), which would depict that Basudeo Agarwala (Vendor of the plaintiff) had purchased 32 decimals of land in Plot No. 479 & 444, bearing Khatiyan No. 97, from Nepubala Devi, vide Registered Sale Deed No. 1382/1970 and 1.10 decimals of land in Plot No. 452 & 498 bearing Khatiyan No. 17, Plot No. 442, 683 bearing Khatiyan No. 33 of Mouza: Merah from Prafull Kumar Chandra vide Registered Sale Deed No. 3257/1971. The sale deeds were exhibited as P-6 to P-6/8.
42. Two witnesses were examined by the plaintiff. P.W.- 1 is Sapan Sen Gupta who is Director of the plaintiff company and P.W-2 is Dhananjay Dubey. PW-1 filed his examination-in-chief on affidavit stating that he is the Director of the plaintiff company and he is acquainted with the disputed property. The disputed property is situated under Mouza Medha, Mouza No. 251, District- Dhanbad, C.S. Khata No. 20, 97, 17, 33, 14, 30, 82, 179, 62, 159, 18, 174, 117, 114, 51, 67, 43, 194, 33, 193, 42, 198, 101, 47, 116, 27, 26, 192, 44/1, 174/25 and 165, 51 which comprises of several plots were purchased by Valley Refractories Limited vide Registered Sale Deed Nos. 1584 dated 04.03.1994, 10541 dated 03.09.1983, 10213 dated 11.04.1972, 10542 dated 03.09.1983, 7498 dated 22.03.1972, 10467 dated 01.09.1983, 10466 dated 01.09.1983, 11016 dated 22.11.1985 and 12294 dated 08.06.1972 which is described in the Schedule 'A' of the plaint. After the purchase, Valley Refractories Limited came into peaceful possession in the said property. Thereafter, Valley Refractories Limited changed its name to Shri Valley Refractories Limited and a certificate was issued under the Companies Rules, 2014. He further stated that in the last survey khatiyan, the disputed property bearing R.S. Khata No. 373 and 374 have been wrongly published in the name of Anabad Bihar Sarkar (Jharkhand). When he came to know about the aforesaid incorrect entry, he filed application for obtaining the certified copy of the survey khatiyan and obtained certified copy. He further stated that the aforesaid property has been 16 ( 2025:JHHC:12967 ) erroneously recorded in the name of 'Anabad Bihar Sarkar', which is required to be corrected. After obtaining the certified copy of the recent survey khatiyan of Khata No. 373 and 374, he sent a legal notice dated 25.03.2022 under Section 80 of C.P.C. through his advocate to the defendants. He stated that the defendants have no right, title, interest and possession over the disputed property, rather the plaintiff has peaceful possession over the same. He exhibited online copy of the certificate of Shri Valley Refractories Limited as Exhibit P-1. He identified the photocopy of Form No. DIR-12 as Exhibit-X. He exhibited the legal notice dated 25.03.2022 as Exhibit P-2 and the original postal receipts dated 25.03.2022 as Exhibits P-3, P-3/1 and P-3/2. He also exhibited that original information applications dated 16.11.2021, 01.11.2021 and 16.11.2021 issued by the Survey Office as Exhibit P-4, P-4/1 and P-4/2. He also exhibited the certified copies of R.S. Khatiyan Khata No.373 and 374 as Exhibit- P-5 and P-5/1. He exhibited the certified copies of sale deed no. 12294 dated 24.04.1972, sale deed no. 11016 dated 22.11.1985, sale deed no. 10466 dated 01.09.1983, sale deed no. 10467 dated 01.09.1983, sale deed no. 10542 dated 01.09.1983, sale deed no. 1584 dated 04.03.1994, sale deed no. 7498 dated 22.09.1972, sale deed no. 10213 dated 11.04.1972 and sale deed no. 10541 dated 03.09.1983 as Exhibits - P-6, P-6/1, P-6/2, P-6/3, P-6/4, P-6/5, P-6/6, P-6/7 and P- 6/8 respectively. He also exhibited the Rent Receipt Nos. 2134549 dated 15.02.2014, 2980173 dated 27.09.2010, 129202 dated 28.11.2016, 129242 dated 10.12.2016, 054584 dated 18.11.2014, 2153327 dated 28.03.2006, 123241 dated 10.12.2016 and 2238034 dated 20.12.2016 as Exhibits- P-7, P-7/1, P-7/2, P-7/3, P-7/4, P-7/5, P- 7/6 and P-7/7 respectively. He stated that the claim of the plaintiff company is correct.
43. PW-2 filed his examination in chief on affidavit stating therein that he works in the company of the plaintiff and knows the disputed property. He further stated that disputed property is situated under Mouza Medha, Mouza No. 251, District- Dhanbad, C.S. Khata No. 20, 97, 17, 33, 14, 30, 82, 179, 62, 159, 18, 174, 117, 114, 51, 67, 43, 17 ( 2025:JHHC:12967 ) 194, 33, 193, 42, 198, 101, 47, 116, 27, 26, 192, 44/1, 174/25 and 165, 51 which comprises of several plots were purchased by Valley Refractories Limited vide Registered Sale Deed Nos. 1584 dated 04.03.1994, 10541 dated 03.09.1983, 10213 dated 11.04.1972, 10542 dated 03.09.1983, 7498 dated 22.03.1972, 10467 dated 01.09.1983, 10466 dated 01.09.1983, 11016 dated 22.11.1985 and 12294 dated 08.06.1972 which is described in the Schedule 'A' of the plaint. After the purchase, Valley Refractories Limited came into peaceful possession in the said property. Thereafter, Valley Refractories Limited changed its name to Shri Valley Refractories Limited and a certificate was issued under the Companies Rules, 2014. He further stated that in the last survey khatiyan, the disputed property bearing R.S. Khata No. 373 and 374 have been wrongly published in the name of Anabad Bihar Sarkar (Jharkhand). When the plaintiff company came to know about the aforesaid incorrect entry, the Director of the plaintiff company filed application for obtaining the certified copy of the survey khatiyan and obtained certified copy. He further stated that the aforesaid property has been erroneously recorded in the name of Anabad Bihar Sarkar, which is required to be corrected. After obtaining the certified copy of the recent survey khatiyan of Khata No. 373 and 374, the Director of the plaintiff company sent a legal notice dated 25.03.2022 under Section 80 of C.P.C. through its advocate to the defendants. He stated that the defendants have no right, title, interest and possession over the disputed property, rather the plaintiff has peaceful possession over the same and the claim of the plaintiff company is correct. After examination, PW-2 was discharged and evidence on behalf of the plaintiff was closed on 04.05.2023.
Points for determination.
44. Following points of determination emerge in the present case:
(A) Whether the suit was maintainable? (B) Whether the suit was barred by limitation?18
( 2025:JHHC:12967 ) (C) Whether the plaintiff has right, title, interest and possession over the suit property (Khata no. 273 and
274) and whether the plaintiff is entitled to any correction in the record of rights (Khatiyan) as prayed for in the plaint?
Point of determination no. (A) - Maintainability of the suit
45. In the judgement passed by the Hon'ble Full Bench of Hon'ble Patna High Court (Ranchi Bench) reported in AIR 1987 Pat 167 (FB) [Paritosh Maity versus Ghasiram Maity], it has been held that a civil suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession and, interalia, challenging the entries in the revenue record would still be maintainable even after the insertion of clause (ee) in section 87(1), Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908. The present suit was filed seeking a declaration of title and confirmation of possession and, interalia, challenging the entries in the record of rights and when the defendants did not respond to the notice under section 80 of CPC by which the plaintiff asked the defendants to rectify the record of rights. Hence, the suit was maintainable. The point of determination no. (A) is decided in favour of the appellant.
Point of determination no. (B) - Limitation
46. The learned Trial Court has not considered the point of limitation. However, the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the learned Trial Court ought to have suo-moto considered the point of limitation. It has been submitted that the entry in record of rights of the year 2007 has been challenged in the year 2022 and therefore the suit was hopelessly barred by limitation. On the other hand, it is the case of the appellants that as per the plaint and the evidences placed on record, the plaintiff came to know about the incorrect entry in the record of rights only in the year 2021 and they issued notice to the defendants under Section 80 of CPC and having no response, filed the suit in the year 2022 and therefore, the suit was not barred by limitation.
19( 2025:JHHC:12967 )
47. The plaintiff has stated in the plaint that the cause of action to file the suit arose on 28.10.2021 when the plaintiff came to know the fact that the land has been wrongly recorded in the name of 'Anabad Bihar Sarkar' and immediately thereafter obtained certified copies and sent legal notices under section 80 of C.P.C. and then filed the suit. The P.W-1 has clearly stated in his evidence in Paragraph-6 to 9 that he had no knowledge of the wrong entry in the record of rights and as soon as he came to know about the wrong entry, he applied for certified copy, issued notice under Section 80 of CPC and then filed the suit as the wrong entry was required to be corrected. It was also stated in the evidence that the plaintiff was in peaceful possession of the suit property and defendants do not have any right, title, interest and possession over the suit property. He has also exhibited the notice sent to the defendant under section 80 C.P.C. by his advocate as Exhibit- P-2 and its postal receipts as Exhibit- P-3. P-3/1 and P-3/2; The application and connected documents seeking information from survey office has been exhibited as Exhibit- P/4, P/4/1, P/4/2. Similar statement has been made by the P.W-2 in Paragraph-6 of the evidence and has also stated about sending the notice under section 80 C.P.C. Thus, the plaintiff has proved that they had no knowledge about wrong entry in record of rights prior to the year 2021 and upon getting knowledge of the wrong entry, they obtained certified copies, issued notice under Section 80 of C.P.C. and then filed the suit in 2022.
48. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in judgment reported in (2010) 2 SCC 194 (Daya Singh -Vs-Gurudeo Singh) that mere adverse entry in the revenue records cannot give rise to a cause of action until there is an accrual of right asserted in the suit and its infringement or at least a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe that right. In Daya Singh (supra) the question involved was relating to the question of limitation and the only question decided was whether the mere existence of an adverse entry in the revenue records had given rise to the cause of action as contemplated under Article 58 or had it accrued when the right was infringed or threatened to be infringed. Part III of the Schedule which has prescribed the period of 20 ( 2025:JHHC:12967 ) limitation relates to suits concerning declarations. Article 58 of the Act clearly says that to obtain any other declaration, the limitation would be three years from the date when the right to sue first accrues. Reference was made to numerous decisions. In AIR 1930 PC 270 the Privy Council observed as follows:
"... There can be no 'right to sue' until there is an accrual of the right asserted in the suit and its infringement, or at least a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe that right, by the defendant against whom the suit is instituted."
A similar view was reiterated in C. Mohammad Yunus v. Syed Unnissa AIR 1961 SC 808 in which this Court observed:
"7. ... The period of six years prescribed by Article 120 has to be computed from the date when the right to sue accrues and there could be no right to sue until there is an accrual of the right asserted in the suit and its infringement or at least a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe that right."
It was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in C. Mohammad Yunus [AIR 1961 SC 808] that the cause of action for the purposes of Article 58 of the Act accrues only when the right asserted in the suit is infringed or there is at least a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe that right. In the said case it was held that mere existence of a wrong entry in the revenue records does not, in law, give rise to a cause of action within the meaning of Article 58 of the Act. The finding on facts dealing with the cause of action is quoted as under:-
"16. Keeping these principles in mind, let us consider the admitted facts of the case. In Para 16 of the plaint, it has been clearly averred that the right to sue accrued when such right was infringed by the defendants about a week back when the plaintiff had for the first time come to know about the wrong entries in the record-of-rights and when the defendants had refused to admit the claim of the plaintiff. Admittedly, the suit was filed on 21-8-1990. According to the averments made by the plaintiff in their plaint, as noted hereinabove, if this statement is accepted, the question of holding that the suit was barred by limitation could not arise at all. Accordingly, we are of the view that the right to sue accrued when a clear and 21 ( 2025:JHHC:12967 ) unequivocal threat to infringe that right by the defendants when they refused to admit the claim of the appellants i.e. only seven days before filing of the suit. Therefore, we are of the view that within three years from the date of infringement as noted in Para 16 of the plaint, the suit was filed. Therefore, the suit which was filed for declaration on 21-8-1990, in our view, cannot be held to be barred by limitation."
49. In the light of the aforesaid judgement Daya Singh (supra), this Court is of the considered view that the cause of action for the suit arose not from the date of entry in the record of rights, but from the date of knowledge of the plaintiff regarding wrong entry in the record of rights and when inspite of notice under Section 80 of C.P.C to the defendants asking the defendants to rectify the record of rights and stating that there is a serious cloud on the title of the plaintiff, the defendants did not respond. This all happened in the year 2021-2022 and the suit was filed in the year 2022. Merely because the entry in record of rights was of the year 2007, the same has no consequence so far as point of limitation is concerned and there is no material on record to show that the plaintiff had knowledge or unequivocal threat of infringement of its right prior to the date stated and proved by the plaintiff. Thus, the suit was filed within three years from the date of knowledge of entry in the record of rights and only when there was a clear and unequivocal threat of infringement of the right of the plaintiff when the defendants neither rectified the record of rights, nor responded to the aforesaid notice issued by the plaintiff.
50. This Court finds that the learned Trial Court has not considered the point of limitation and admittedly the proceedings were ex-parte. However, while considering the point of limitation at this stage of first appeal having been raised by the respondents (defendants) during the course of arguments, this Court, as held above, finds that the suit is not barred by limitation.
51. So far the judgement passed in the case reported in 2003 (2) JLJR 708 (Dwarika Sonar Vs Most Biguli Devi) relied upon by the learned counsel for the state is concerned, the same is clearly 22 ( 2025:JHHC:12967 ) distinguishable on facts. In the said case, the defendant was in possession of the suit property and it was not the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff had no knowledge about the publication of the record of rights in the name of the defendant; Rather, it was the case of the plaintiff himself that record of rights was published in the name of the defendant in the year 1966 and suit was filed in the year 1984 challenging the entry in the record of rights and the Hon'ble Judge has recorded that it was not the case of the plaintiff that they had no knowledge of the publication of the record of rights in the name of the defendant while holding that the suit was barred by limitation. On the other hand, in the present case, the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property and came to know about the alleged entry in the record of rights in the year 2021 and the suit was filed in the year 2022 after taking the required steps as mentioned above. This Court is of the considered view that the suit was well within the period of limitation, as contained in Article 58 of the Limitation Act and the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents that the suit was barred by limitation is rejected.
52. Consequently, the point of determination no. (B) is also decided in favour of the plaintiff (appellant) and against the defendants (respondents).
Point of determination no. (C)
53. In the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2007) 11 SCC 736 (Narain Prasad Aggarwal (Dead) By Lrs. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh)(supra), it has been held in paragraph 19 that record-of-right is not a document of title, entries made therein in terms of Section 35 of the Evidence Act although are admissible as relevant piece of evidence and although the same also carry a presumption of correctness, but it is beyond any doubt or dispute that such presumption is rebuttable. In the said case, the plaintiff was claiming title and possession with respect to the property, inter alia, relying upon the order of settlement commissioner way back as on 30.10.2022 wherein it was held that no deed of lease having been 23 ( 2025:JHHC:12967 ) executed in respect of the land in question, the title of one Purti Sethani should be deemed to be a permanent lessee. In the said judgment, it was also held in paragraph 21 that payment or non- payment of rent does not create or extinguish title. Paragraphs 19 and 21 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted as under:
"19. Record-of-right is not a document of title. Entries made therein in terms of Section 35 of the Evidence Act although are admissible as a relevant piece of evidence and although the same may also carry a presumption of correctness, but it is beyond any doubt or dispute that such a presumption is rebuttable. Exhibit P-4 and Exhibit P-6, whereupon reliance has been placed by the learned trial Judge to hold that the State had title over the property in question, were documents of year 1920-1921, but failed to notice that the documents must have been taken into consideration and/or would be presumed to have been taken into consideration by the Settlement Commissioner when the aforementioned order dated 30-10-1922 (Exhibit P-3) was passed wherein it had categorically been held that no deed of lease having been executed in respect of the land in question, the title of the said Putri Sethani should be deemed to be a permanent lessee.
21. The existence of a lease deed must be proved. The same must also answer the legal requirements contained in Sections 105 and 107 of the Transfer of Property Act. The relationship of lessor and lessee and the terms and conditions of a lease would depend upon the contract between the parties. It is not and cannot be the case of the State that an oral lease was granted in favour of Putri Sethani. In a case involving the State and particularly when the nature of the land is said to be nazul land, it was imperative on the part of the State to execute a deed of lease. As execution of such a document has not been proved, the learned trial Judge, in our opinion, committed a manifest error in solely relying upon the entries made in the revenue record-of-rights despite noting the order of the Commissioner of Settlement dated 30-10-1922. Entries made in the revenue record-of-rights, it would bear repetition to state, cannot defeat the lawful title acquired by an auction-purchaser, particularly, in view of the fact that Putri Sethani had questioned the order passed by the Collector of the district before the Commissioner of 24 ( 2025:JHHC:12967 ) Settlement which ended in her favour. It is well settled that payment or non-payment of rent does not create or extinguish title."
54. In the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court reported on (2006) 5 SCC 353 (Prem Singh and Ors. Vs. Birbal and Ors.)(supra) , it has been held at paragraph 20 that if the plaintiff is in possession of a property, he may file a suit for declaration that the deed is not binding upon him but if he is not in possession thereof, even under a void transaction, the right by way of adverse possession may be claimed and thus it has been held that it is not correct to contend that the provisions of the Limitation Act would have no application at all in the event the transaction is held to be void. It has been further held in paragraph 27 that there is presumption that a registered document is validly executed. A registered document, therefore, prima facie would be valid in law. The onus of proof is on the person who leads evidence to rebut the presumption. Paragraphs 20 and 27 of the aforesaid judgment are quoted as under:
"20. If the plaintiff is in possession of a property, he may file a suit for declaration that the deed is not binding upon him but if he is not in possession thereof, even under a void transaction, the right by way of adverse possession may be claimed. Thus, it is not correct to contend that the provisions of the Limitation Act would have no application at all in the event the transaction is held to be void."
"27. There is a presumption that a registered document is validly executed. A registered document, therefore, prima facie would be valid in law. The onus of proof, thus, would be on a person who leads evidence to rebut the presumption. In the instant case, Respondent 1 has not been able to rebut the said presumption."
55. In the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2007) 13 SCC 210 (Asokan Vs. Lakshmikutty and Ors.), it has been held in paragraph 20 that when a registered document is executed and the executors are aware of the terms and the nature of document, a presumption arise in regard to correctness thereof. Such a presumption is raised coupled with recitals in regard to putting the 25 ( 2025:JHHC:12967 ) donee in possession of the property. The matter was arising out of recitals made in the gift. The said judgment clearly holds that a recital in the deed is binding on the executors of the deed and there is a presumption raised with regard to its correctness. Paragraph 20 of the said judgment is quoted as under:
"20. When a registered document is executed and the executors are aware of the terms and nature of the document, a presumption arises in regard to the correctness thereof. When such a presumption is raised coupled with the recitals in regard to putting the donee in possession of the property, the onus should be on the donor and not on the donee."
56. In the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2007) 6 SCC 186 (Suraj Bhan and Ors. Vs. Financial Commissioner and Ors.), it has been held in paragraph 9 that entry in revenue record does not confer title on a person whose name appears in record of rights. Paragraph 9 of the said judgment is quoted as under:
"9. There is an additional reason as to why we need not interfere with that order under Article 136 of the Constitution. It is well settled that an entry in revenue records does not confer title on a person whose name appears in record-of-rights. It is settled law that entries in the revenue records or jamabandi have only "fiscal purpose" i.e. payment of land revenue, and no ownership is conferred on the basis of such entries. So far as title to the property is concerned, it can only be decided by a competent civil court (vide Jattu Ram v. Hakam Singh). As already noted earlier, civil proceedings in regard to genuineness of will are pending with the High Court of Delhi. In the circumstances, we see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the High Court in the writ petition."
57. In the judgement reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 566 (Damodhar Narayan Sawale (D) through Lrs. Vs. Tejrao Bajirao Mhaske), it has been held that there can be no doubt with respect to the position that where a deed of sale had been duly executed and 26 ( 2025:JHHC:12967 ) registered, its delivery and payment of consideration have been endorsed thereon it would amount to a full transfer of ownership so as to entitle its purchaser to maintain a suit for possession of the property sold.
58. In the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3954 of 2025, decided on 07.04.2025, in the case of K. Gopi Vs. The Sub-Registrar & Ors., the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Registry Officer is not concerned with the title held by the executant, and it is not the function of the registration authority to ascertain as to whether the vendor has title to the property which he is seeking to transfer. If the executant has no right, title or interest in the property, the registered document cannot affect any transfer. It has also been held that execution and registration of a document has the effect of transferring only those rights, if any, that the executant possesses. Paragraph 15 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted as under:
"15. The registering officer is not concerned with the title held by the executant. He has no adjudicatory power to decide whether the executant has any title. Even if an executant executes a sale deed or a lease in respect of a land in respect of which he has no title, the registering officer cannot refuse to register the document if all the procedural compliances are made and the necessary stamp duty as well as registration charges/fee are paid. We may note here that under the scheme of the 1908 Act, it is not the function of the Sub-Registrar or Registering Authority to ascertain whether the vendor has title to the property which he is seeking to transfer. Once the registering authority is satisfied that the parties to the document are present before him and the parties admit execution thereof before him, subject to making procedural compliances as narrated above, the document must be registered. The execution and registration of a document have the effect of transferring only those rights, if any, that the executant possesses. If the executant has no right, title, or interest in the property, the registered document cannot effect any transfer."
59. This Court is of the considered view that there is a presumption with regard to a registered document having been validly executed. In order to evict a person in possession from the property who is in 27 ( 2025:JHHC:12967 ) possession of the property by virtue of a registered document, the State or any other party will have to file a suit questioning the validity of the registered document which would be required to be decided subject to objections which can be raised on behalf of the person in possession of the property.
60. In the present case, neither the State filed written statement nor the State took any steps to set aside the proceeding leading to passing of ex parte judgment nor the State has taken any step with regard to challenging the legality and validity of the sale deed of the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff which has been duly proved and exhibited. However, at the same time, the law is well settled that a vendor cannot transfer right better than what he has. The exhibits which have been produced by the plaintiff at the stage of trial, has given the details of the vendor with regard to the acquisition of the property, but no further history with regard to addressing the title of the vendors of the plaintiff has been pleaded or proved in the suit. In such circumstances, recitals made in the registered sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff cannot be said to be sufficient to prove of the title of the plaintiff with respect to the suit property as against the claim of the state. Suffice it to say that the plaintiff has right to the extent of whatever right the vendors of the plaintiff had as the vendors cannot transfer better title than what they have. In the present case, the executors of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff is not in picture, rather the plaintiff has filed suit seeking declaration of title as against the State, but nothing has been brought on record as to how the property devolved upon the plaintiff and its vendors.
Point of determination no. (C) with respect to right, title, interest and possession of C.S. Khata Nos. 20, 117, 179, 193, 192, 101, 114, 25, 17 and 159 renumbered as R.S. Khata No. 373
61. It is the case of the plaintiff that C.S. Khata Nos. 20, 117, 179, 193, 192, 101, 114, 25, 17, 43 and 159 have been renumbered as R.S. Khata No. 373 and 374. The Schedule B of the plaint and the area as mentioned in the corresponding sale deeds exhibited by the plaintiff as 28 ( 2025:JHHC:12967 ) compared to the area as per exhibited khatiyan (record of rights) with respect to R.S. Khata No. 373 and 374 of the plaint are as under:
Sl. R.S. R.S. R.S. C.S. C.S. C.S. Observation of this No. Khata Plot Area Khata Plot Area Court based on No. No. No. No. exhibited Khatiyan and sale deeds
1. 373 1049 / 13 20 307 62.5 Shown in 2522 possession of the plaintiff in the Khatiyan (record of rights)
2. 373 1100 91 117 295 5 Area in Sale 296 29 Deed:108 297 48 decimals but 298 26 Area in the Khatiyan:91 decimals which has been shown in possession of the plaintiff in the Khatiyan (record of rights)
3. 373 1040 21 179 275 26 Shown in possession of the plaintiff in the Khatiyan (record of rights)
4. 373 1038 38 193 277 53 Shown in possession of the plaintiff in the Khatiyan (record of rights)
5. 373 1037 36 192 280 44 Shown in possession of the plaintiff in the Khatiyan (record of rights)
6. 373 958 88 101 396 81 Shown in possession of the plaintiff in the Khatiyan (record of rights)
7. 373 957 10 192 513 22 Shown in possession of the plaintiff in the Khatiyan (record of rights)
8. 373 947 30 114 400 30 Shown in possession of the plaintiff in the Khatiyan (record of rights)
9. 373 949 7 114 402 6 Shown in possession of the 29 ( 2025:JHHC:12967 ) plaintiff in the Khatiyan (record of rights)
10. 373 965 104 25 405 120 Shown in possession of the plaintiff in the Khatiyan (record of rights)
11. 373 945 78 17 445 6 Area in the sale 447 4 deed Deed:82 450 6 decimals but 498 19 Area in the 499 7 Khatiyan:78 501 4 decimals which 497 15 has been shown in 500 15 possession of the 500 6 plaintiff in the Khatiyan (record of rights)
12. 373 943 38 17 453 15 Shown in 452 32 possession of the plaintiff in the Khatiyan (record of rights)
13. 373 928 7 159 483 22 Shown in possession of the plaintiff in the Khatiyan (record of rights)
14. 373 929 9 159 483 22 Shown in possession of the plaintiff in the Khatiyan (record of rights)
15. 374 1051 190 43 293 16 Area in Sale Deed 43 291 28 does not match with area in Khatiyan Not Shown in possession of the plaintiff in the Khatiyan (record of rights)
62. This Court finds that the properties in R.S. Khata No. 373 in the record of rights as exhibited have been shown in possession of the plaintiff and considering the evidence of the plaintiff which remained ex-parte against the defendants and also considering the findings and discussions of the learned Trial Court to the extent it relates to R.S. 30 ( 2025:JHHC:12967 ) Khata No. 373, the possession of plaintiff with respect to the area mentioned in the Khatiyan (record of rights) is confirmed.
63. This Court is of the considered view that the learned Trial Court ought to have decreed the suit with respect to possession of the plaintiff to the extent it relates to Schedule B of the plaint relating to R.S. Khata No. 373 and corresponding plot numbers and area which has been shown in possession of the plaintiff in the Khatiyan (record of rights). The possession of the plaintiff is declared and decreed to the aforesaid extent.
64. So far as the title with respect to the properties shown in R.S. Khata No. 373 in the aforesaid Schedule B of the plaint is concerned, this Court finds that the plaintiff has produced the registered title deeds with respect to its claim of title, but there is neither any pleading, nor any material to trace the title of the plaintiff or its predecessors-in-interest to prove that the entry in the record of rights showing property belonging to 'Anabad Bihar Sarkar' is incorrect. This Court is of the considered view that when the plaintiff is seeking declaration of title over property as against the State, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to trace the title of its predecessors-in-interest by pleading and proving the same. This Court is of the considered view that there is no doubt that the details mentioned in the registered sale deeds relied upon by the plaintiff would have evidentiary value in absence of any challenge to such recitals in the sale deeds, but the recitals in the sale deeds in the present case refers to previous sale deeds, but does not disclose as to how the property was initially acquired so as to prove that the entry in the record of rights showing the property in the name of 'Anabad Bihar Sarkar' is incorrect. In the present case, neither the plaint, nor the sale deeds as exhibited, nor the sale deeds sought to be introduced through additional evidence give the complete chain as to how the plaintiff derives title as against the defendant State who is the paramount owner of all the land after coming into force of Bihar Land Reforms Act subject to the rights which are saved by Bihar Land Reforms Act itself.
31( 2025:JHHC:12967 )
65. The record of rights as exhibited have been finally published under Section 83(2) of Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 and as per Section 84(3), every entry in a record of rights so published shall be evidence of the matter referred to in such entry and shall be presumed to be correct until it is proved, by evidence, to be incorrect. The plaintiff in the present case has miserably failed to plead and prove by evidence that the entry in the record of rights as 'Anabad Bihar Sarkar' with respect to the property claimed in Khata No. 373 is incorrect. The plaintiff has failed to rebut the presumption under Section 84(3) of Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908. Even when the suit was ex-parte against the State, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove its case as against the State by cogent evidence/materials and properly trace the title of the property so as to rebut the said presumption under Section 84(3) of Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908. This Court is of the considered view that title of the plaintiff cannot be declared as against the defendants-State merely because the proceedings were ex-parte and plaintiff produced registered sale deeds. The law is well settled that registration of a sale deed does not transfer a better title than what the vendor possesses. However, the facts remain that in the present case, nothing has been brought on record to show that the corresponding sale deeds exhibited by the plaintiff has been challenged by anybody. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is sufficient to say that the plaintiff has not been able to prove title with respect to the aforesaid property covered under Khata No. 373 as against the defendants-State and has not been able to rebut the presumption regarding correctness of entries made in the record of rights finally published by leading cogent evidence including bringing on record the entries made in the previous record of rights to show as to whether the property was ever recorded in the name of predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiff or even orders regarding fixation of rent by the State upon vesting or order of mutation thereafter in the name of the predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiff. Mere production of rent receipts is not sufficient to rebut the presumption regarding correctness of entries made in the record of 32 ( 2025:JHHC:12967 ) rights. This Court further finds that most of the exhibited rent receipts are much later than final publication of the record of rights in the year 2007, except a few which were of the year 2006 and no order of mutation has been exhibited to show that the property was running in the name of the predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiff which was mutated in their names and rent receipt were issued. This Court is of the considered view that the learned Trial Court has rightly refused to declare the title of the plaintiff as against the State with respect to Schedule B property relating to R.S. Khata No. 373. Point of determination no. (C) with respect to right, title, interest and possession of C.S. Plot No. 293 and 291 of C.S. Khata No. 43 corresponding to R.S. Khata No. 374
66. It is the case of the plaintiff that C.S. Plot No. 291 and 293 in C.S. Khata No. 43 has been renumbered as R.S. Khata No. 374, R.S. Plot No. 1051. The plaintiff has exhibited certified copy of continuous Khatiyan according to which Khata No. 374 has been recorded as "Anabad Sarva Sadharan", that is for 'public use' and the corresponding plot no. is 1051 and shown as 'rasta', that is, road. Moreover, the property has not been shown in the possession of any individual person including the plaintiff.
67. It is the case of the plaintiff as per the plaint that C.S. Plot No. 293 and 291 of C.S. Khata No. 43 has been renumbered as R.S. plot No. 1051 of R.S. Khata No. 374. As per Exhibit P-6 which is the connected sale deed, interalia, it includes C.S. Plot No. 293 and 291 of C.S. Khata No. 43, and in the sale deed the area is shown as 0.96 acres and 0.16 acres respectively, total being 1.12 acres [or 112 decimals]. As per the exhibited certified copy of the khatiyan (record of rights) R.S. Khata No. 374 has been shown as only one plot i.e. R.S. Plot No. 1051 and area is shown as 1 acre 90 decimals [or 190 decimals].
68. Thus, there is a mis-match with respect to the area when sale deed and khatiyan (record of rights) are compared. This is over and above the fact that entire R.S. Khata No. 374 has been mentioned to be 'Anabad Sarva Sadharan' and not 'Anabad Bihar Sarkar' although in the plaint and even in the evidence, the plaintiff has claimed that 33 ( 2025:JHHC:12967 ) the entire suit property including the R.S. Khata No. 374 has been recorded as 'Anabad Bihar Sarkar' in the record of rights which is not the case on the face of the record of rights (khatiyan) as exhibited by the plaintiff. Thus, this Court finds that there is mis-match with respect to the area and also the nature of land.
69. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the foundational facts which has been pleaded in the plaint with respect to Khata No. 374 is not matching with the evidences produced by the plaintiff particularly the khatiyan (record of rights). It is not the case of the plaintiff that area or even the nature of land has been wrongly recorded in the khatiyan (record of rights) which has been finally published.
70. This Court also finds that although the plaintiff has exhibited the rent receipt with regard to C.S. Plot No. 293 and 291 of C.S. Khata No. 43, but the area mentioned in the sale deed exceeds the actual area of corresponding Khata No. 374 and even the order of mutation/correction slip has not been produced.
71. This Court also finds that with respect to C.S. Plot No. 293 and 291 of C.S. Khata No. 43 corresponding to R.S. Khata No. 374, no entry has been made in the Khatiyan showing possession of one or the other person, rather the property has been shown as raasta i.e. Road for public use. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the possession with respect to Khata No. 374 has not been proved by the plaintiff. This Court finds that the learned Trial Court has failed to consider that Khata No. 374 has not been recorded as 'Anabad Bihar Sarkar', but has been recorded as 'Anabad Sarva Sadharan'. The learned trial court has also failed to consider that the possession of Khata No. 374 has not been shown in favour of the plaintiff in the khatiyan (record of rights) and the learned Trial Court has wrongly recorded that the plaintiff has been found in possession of the entire suit land [which certainly included Khata No. 374].
72. So far as the title with respect to the properties shown in R.S. Khata No. 374 in the aforesaid Schedule B of the plaint is concerned, 34 ( 2025:JHHC:12967 ) there is nothing on record to show that C.S. Plot No. 293 and 291 of C.S. Khata No. 43 corresponding to R.S. Khata No. 374 was ever recorded in the name of the plaintiff or even predecessors of the plaintiff at any point of time.
73. This Court is of the considered view that when the plaintiff is seeking declaration of title over property as against the State, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to trace the title of its predecessors-in- interest by pleading and proving the same and even when the details are mentioned in the sale deeds relied upon by the plaintiff may have some evidentiary value in absence of any challenge to such recitals in the sale deeds. However, in the present case, neither the plaint, nor the sale deeds as exhibited, nor the sale deeds sought to be introduced through additional evidence give the complete chain as to how the plaintiff derives title as against the defendant-State who is the paramount owner of all the land after coming into force of Bihar Land Reforms Act, subject to the rights which are saved by Bihar Land Reforms Act itself.
74. The record of rights as exhibited have been finally published under Section 83(2) of Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 and as per Section 84(3), every entry in a record of rights so published shall be evidence of the matter referred to in such entry and shall be presumed to be correct until it is proved, by evidence, to be incorrect.
75. The plaintiff in the present case has miserably failed to plead and prove by evidence that the entry in the record of rights as 'Anabad Sarva Sadharan' consisting of public road with respect to C.S. Plot No. 293 and 291 of C.S. Khata No. 43 corresponding to R.S. Khata No. 374 is incorrect. The plaintiff has pleaded that the entry in record of rights is 'Anabad Bihar Sarkar' although on the face of the Khatiyan (exhibit-5/2) the property is recorded as 'Anabad Sarva Sadharan' meant for public use (road). The plaintiff has failed to rebut the presumption under Section 84(3) of Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908.
76. Even when the suit was ex-parte against the State, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove its case as against the State by 35 ( 2025:JHHC:12967 ) cogent evidence/materials and properly trace the title of the property so as to rebut the said presumption under Section 84(3) of Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 and title of the plaintiff cannot be declared as against the defendants-State merely because the proceedings were ex-parte and the plaintiff produced registered sale deeds. The law is well settled that registration of a sale deed does not transfer a better title than what the vendor possesses and in the present case, nothing has been brought on record to show that the corresponding sale deed exhibited by the plaintiff has been challenged by anybody.
77. In aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is sufficient to say that the plaintiff has not been able to prove right, title, interest and possession and also that the entry in record of rights 'Anabad Sarva Sadharan' showing public road is incorrect with respect to the properties covered under Khata No. 374 as against the defendants- State. Accordingly, the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief in connection with C.S. Plot No. 293 and 291 of C.S. Khata No. 43 corresponding to R.S. Khata No. 374 as against the defendants-State.
78. This Court is of the considered view that the learned Trial Court has rightly refused to declare the title of the plaintiff as against the State with respect to C.S. Plot No. 293 and 291 of C.S. Khata No. 43 corresponding to R.S. Khata No. 374.
79. The point of determination no. (C) is answered as follows:-
(a) claim of title with respect to R.S. Khata No. 373 mentioned in schedule-B of the plaint as against the defendant state is answered against the appellant (plaintiff) and in favour of the defendants.
Consequently, it is held that the plaintiff is not entitled to any correction in the record of rights (Khatiyan) as prayed for in the plaint.
(b) claim of possession with respect to R.S. Khata No. 373 mentioned in schedule-B of the plaint is answered in favour of the appellant (plaintiff) and against the defendants to the extent the area is mentioned in the Khatiyan (record of rights).
36( 2025:JHHC:12967 )
(c) claim of right, title, interest and possession with respect to R.S. Khata No. 374 mentioned in schedule-B of the plaint as against the defendant state is answered against the appellant (plaintiff) and in favour of the defendants. Consequently, the plaintiff is not entitled to any correction in the record of rights (Khatiyan) as prayed for in the plaint.
80. This appeal is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent mentioned in para 79 (b).
81. The interlocutory application seeking to adduce additional evidence has already been rejected as aforesaid.
82. Other pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not pressed.
83. Office to prepare decree.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Binit 37