Jharkhand High Court
Balkishun Ram vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Deputy ... on 20 June, 2025
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
2025:JHHC:16267
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S.A. No. 380 of 2017
1. Balkishun Ram, son of late Laxman Pasi
2. Mahendra Kumar, son of Balkishun Ram
Both resident of Churihar Mohalla, within Ward No.12 of
Chatra Municipality, P.O. - Chatra, P.S. - Chatra, District -
Chatra ... ... Plaintiffs/Appellants/Appellants
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner, Chatra,
P.O. + P.S. and District - Chatra
2. Sub Divisional Officer, Chatra P.O. + P.S. and District Chatra
3. Etwariya Devi, wife of Dharam Rana, Village Pakaria, P.O. -
Chatra, P.S. - Chatra, District - Chatra
4. Kunti Kumari, daughter of late Dharam Rana, wife of Rajdeo
Rana, resident of Barabagi, P.O. & P.S. & District - Chatra at
present resident of vill - Pakariya P.O. + P.S. and District
Chatra
5. Balo Paswan, son of Chhedi Paswan
6. Most. Sita Devi, wife of late Sohrai Paswan
7. Binod Paswan, son of late Sohrai Paswan
8. Pawan Paswan, son of late Sohrai Paswan
9. Nitu Kumari, Daughter of late Sohrai Paswan
10.Gudiya Kumari, daughter of late Sohrai Paswan
11.Ranju Kumari, Daughter of late Sohrai Paswan
12.Kanchan Devi, daughter of Sohrai Paswan
13.Prem Devi, daughter of late Sohrai Paswan
14.Rameshwar Paswan, son of Anchhu Paswan
Sl No.5 to 14 all are resident of Mohalla - Dhangartoli of
Chatra Town, within Ward No.2 of Chatra Municipality, P.O.
& P.S. - Chatra, District - Chatra
15.(a) Kesho Prasad (Son)
(b) Naresh Prasad (Son)
(c) Suresh Prasad (son)
(d) Sarita Devi (Daughter)
(e) Rita Devi (Daughter)
All residents of Mohall - Chatra Chowk, within Ward No.10 of
Chatra Municipality, P.O. & P.S. - Chatra, District - Chatra,
Jharkhand (Substituted vide order dated 20.02.2023)
16.Ashama Khatoon, wife of late Sakhawat Hussain
17.Wajahat Hussain, son of Late Sakhawat Hussain
18.Md. Sakil, son of Late Sakhawat Hussain
19.Md. Shanwaj, son of Late Sakhawat Hussain
Sl. No. 16 to 19 all are residents of Villag Diwankhana Mohalla
(Khaini Gola), P.O. & P.S Chatra, District - Chatra.
20.Md. Khurshid, son of Late Sakhawat Hussain resident of
Mohalla Pagmal, P.O.+P.S.+District Hazaribagh.
1
2025:JHHC:16267
21.Roshan Khatoon, daughter of Late Sakahawat Hussain, wife of
Md. Ashalam, resident of Mohalla Noor Nagar of Chatra Town,
P.O.+P.S.+District Chatra.
22.Nusharat Khatoon, daughter of Late Sakhawat Hussain, W/o
name not known to the appellants, resident of Karbala Chowk
Ranchi, P.O.+P.S.+ District Ranchi.
23.Anjum Arrah, D/o Late Sakhawat Hussain, resident of
Diwankhana, P.O.+P.S.+ District Chatra.
24.Dolly Arrah, daughter of Late Sakhawat Hussain, w/o name
known to the appellant, resident of Noor Nagar, P.O.+P.S.+
District - Chatra.
25.Sultan Ahmad, son of Late Habib Mian, resident of Village
Chatra Mouza Diwankhana Mohalla (Khaini Gola), Chatra
Nagar Piperpati, P.O. & P.S. Chatra, District - Chatra.
26.Nasima Khatoon, wife of Late Abdul Manan Mian
27.Md. Rizwan
28.Md. Irfan
29.Md. Shamsher
30.Md. Nausad
Sl. No. 27 to 30 all sons of Late Abdul Manan Mian (added
vide order dated 21.08.2014).
Sl. No. 26 to 30 all are resident of Village Diwankhana Mohalla
(Khaini Gola), Chatra Nagar Piperpati, P.O. & P.S. - Chatra,
District - Chatra.
31.Suleman Mian, son of Late Habib Mian, resident of Village
Chatra Mouza Diwankhana Mohalla (Khaini Gola), Chatra
Nagar Piperpati, P.O. & P.S. - Chatra, District - Chatra.
... ... Defendants/Respondents/Respondents
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Appellants : Mr. Ayush Aditya, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Tiwary, Advocate
For the Respondent Nos.4 to 9
And 11 to 14 : Mr. Rajiv Nandan Prasad, Advocate
: Mr. Sushant Kumar Sinha, Advocate
Lastly heard on 07.04.2025.
---
18/20.06.2025 This second appeal has been filed against the judgment dated
12.06.2017 (decree dated 24.06.2017) passed by learned District Judge-V, Chatra in Civil (Title) Appeal No.15 of 2012 whereby the appeal has been dismissed. The appeal was filed by the plaintiffs against the judgment dated 30.03.2012 (decree dated 12.04.2012) passed in Title Suit No.15 of 2005 by learned Munsif, Chatra whereby the Title Suit was dismissed. The plaintiffs are the appellants against judgment of affirmance.
22025:JHHC:16267
2. The impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned 1st appellate court reveals that two appeals were decided by the same judgment, they are Civil (Title) Appeal No.15 of 2012 filed by the plaintiffs and Civil (Title) Appeal No.17 of 2012 filed by the defendant no. 9 to 12 (interveners) and by the impugned judgment both the appeals were dismissed on contest with modification regarding cost. This appeal is confined to Civil (Title) Appeal No.15 of 2012.
3. The suit was filed seeking a declaration of the plaintiffs' right, title and interest over the suit land shown in "Schedule A" after adjudication. A further relief was prayed that the plaintiffs' possession over the suit land be found and confirmed and if the plaintiffs be found dispossessed, during the pendency of the suit, then the possession be restored through the process of court. Schedule -A to the plaint is quoted as under: -
"Scheduled 'A' (suit land) Khata no. plot no. area out of area.
21 106 5.00 acres 5.44 acres Address: - of village - Pakariya, P.S. - Chatra, Thana no.174, Present District - Chatra.
Boundary: - North - Habib Mian.
South - Land of Kanshi Gurujee and Badrilal Sinduria. East - Land of Etwaria Devi in which there is house and well of Etwaria Devi in other plot.
West - Remaining 44 decimal land of plaintiff in plot no - 106."
4. This second appeal has been admitted vide order dated 22.10.2019 framing two substantial questions of law and one additional substantial question of law as framed vide order dated 20.03.2025. This appeal has been finally heard on following three substantial questions of law: -
i. Whether the judgment of learned court below is vitiated for not at all considering the Exhibit - 10 i.e. the order passed in Compensation Case 3 2025:JHHC:16267 No.14/53-54 where the name of ancestors of the appellants/plaintiffs finds mentioned?
ii. Whether the judgment of the appellate court below will survive in view of the judgment in AIR 1968 (Pat.) 302 (Full Bench) or not.?
iii. Whether the suit was barred by the provisions of Sections 31 and 34 of the Specific Relief Act?
5. During the course of arguments and as recorded in the earlier order dated 07.04.2025 by which the arguments were concluded, the learned counsel for the appellants had submitted that Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act has nothing to do with the present case. Arguments of the Appellants/Plaintiffs
6. The learned counsel for the appellants, while giving the foundational background of the case, has submitted that the suit land was "gair majurwa khas" land of ex-landlord namely Mahant Brahm Prakash Dash, and by virtue of settlement through Sada hukumnama of the year 1946, he settled the land in favour of Badamia Devi @ Badamia Pasin followed by delivery of possession coupled with the zamindari rent receipts (Exhibit - 2) with respect to Khata No.21, Plot No.106, area 5.44 acres and land of Khata No.18, area 1.46 acres total area 6.90 acres. He has submitted that Exhibit 2 and 2/a, the zamindari rent receipts would correspond to the date 02.03.1954 and 13.04.1951 respectively and the first rent receipt issued in favour of the plaintiffs by the State was Exhibit 1/o dated 03.08.1956. The ex-landlord filed return under the provisions of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 showing that the settlee, namely, Badamia Devi @ Badamia Pasin in possession and the State authorities placing reliance upon the said return and assessed the compensation payable to the zamindar vide Compensation Case No.14 of 1953-1954 and the said document was exhibited as Exhibit - 10. He has further submitted that the settlee Badamia Devi @ Badamia Pasin continued in possession and got her name mutated and the State issued rent receipts in her favour vide Exhibit - 1 series. In a family dispute, a partition suit was filed bearing 4 2025:JHHC:16267 Partition Suit No.19 of 1987 by one Butta Pasi against the plaintiffs and in the said partition suit it was recorded that the plaintiffs were in possession of the property. It is the case of the plaintiffs that in the year 1992, the defendants tried to dispossess the plaintiffs forcefully on the basis of settlement made by the State vide Settlement Case No.27 of 1960-61 in favour of defendant no.3 with respect to 2 acres of land of plot no.106, khata no.21 and other defendants i.e. defendants nos. 4, 5, and 6 also claimed settlement vide Settlement Case No.27 of 1986-87 to the extent of 1 acre each by the State authorities. On account of such claim put forth by the defendant nos.3, 4, 5 & 6, a proceeding under Sections 144/145 Cr.P.C was initiated and ultimately plaintiffs filed the suit seeking the aforesaid relief.
7. The learned counsel has further submitted that the State, who were the defendant nos.1 and 2, filed a written statement admitting that the suit land was "gair majurwa khas" land of ex-landlord.
However, the State denied the fact that the settlement was made by ex- landlord in favour of Badamia Devi @ Badamia Pasin and further stated that it was not correct to say that her name was mentioned in the return. The State also denied issuance of any rent receipt in her favour and also asserted that if any rent receipt is produced, the same would be forged and fabricated. So far as the other defendants are concerned, they were claiming the land by virtue of settlement made by the State as mentioned above.
8. The learned counsel has also submitted that the trial court as well as the first appellate court while recording findings has not at all considered Exhibit 10 i.e. the order passed in Compensation Case No.14 of 1953-1954 where the name of ancestors of the appellants / plaintiffs was mentioned, and they have also not considered the fact that Sada hukumnama, if followed by zamindari rent receipt, can still be a document to show possession pursuant to settlement and thus the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Full Bench of Patna High Court in AIR 1968 Pat 302 (Full Bench) (Mt. Ugni and Anr. Vs. Chowa Mahto and Ors.) has been ignored and consequently, the first and 5 2025:JHHC:16267 second substantial questions of law are fit to be answered in favour of the plaintiffs.
9. While further elaborating the point with respect to 1st substantial question of law, the learned counsel has submitted that the plaintiffs are claiming suit land on the basis of settlement by way of hukumnama, coupled with delivery of possession and issuance of rent receipt by the ex-landlord; after vesting, the return filed by the ex- landlord on the basis which the compensation was assessed by the State authorities (Exhibit 10) under the provisions of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 and thus the return was duly accepted. In the said return, the name of Badamia Devi @ Badamia Pasin was clearly mentioned with respect to the land which was settled by the ex- landlord (Exhibit 10) which was followed by mutation and issuance of rent receipts by the State authorities.
10. It is submitted that in trial court's judgment, exhibit 10 has been mentioned but not considered and no finding has been recorded with respect to exhibit-10; after formulating the point of determination, the first appellate court has not even mentioned about Exhibit 10 i.e. compensation case under the provisions of Bihar Land Reforms Act,1950 and has straightaway concluded that Exhibit 10 is not a reliable document and has dismissed the suit.
11. The learned counsel has also referred to the evidence of P.W. 7, which has been relied upon by the respondents to show that there is cutting and overwriting in Exhibit 10, has submitted that the learned first appellate court has specifically recorded that P.W. 7 had no correct knowledge of the relevant fact and he is not a reliable witness. The learned counsel has also submitted that on perusal of Exhibit 10, it can be seen that there is no cutting or overwriting so far it relates to the suit property involved in this case.
12. The learned counsel has submitted that it is apparent that both the courts have failed to take into consideration Exhibit 10 which is a document under Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 and has further relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 6 2025:JHHC:16267 (2007) 14 SCC 138 (Abdul Raheem Vs. Karnataka Electricity Board and Ors.) paragraph 12 and 14.
13. With respect to the 2nd substantial question of law, the learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the claim of the plaintiffs is based upon hukumnama coupled with delivery of possession and issuance of rent receipt by ex-landlord and after vesting, the return was filed by the ex-landlord on the basis of which compensation was assessed by the State authorities under the provisions of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. He has referred to the judgment reported in AIR 1968 Pat 302 (Full Bench) (Mt. Ugni and Anr. Vs. Chowa Mahto and Ors.), paragraph 10, which is the judgment referred to in the substantial question of law itself, and has submitted that it has been held that valid raiyati interest can be claimed by hukumnama coupled with delivery of possession and issuance of rent receipt by the ex- landlord and the learned counsel has further relied upon the judgemnt reported in (2005) 3 JCR 211 (Kalara Kharian and Ors. Vs. Bhairo Nagasia and Ors.) paragraphs 5 and 8.
14. The learned counsel has submitted that, in the case at hand, the return was filed by the ex-landlord, wherein the name of the settlee has been clearly mentioned, and the State authorities placing reliance on the said return having assessed the compensation in favour of ex- landlord Exhibit 10 vide Compensation Case No.14 of 1953-1954, followed by mutation and issuance of rent receipt by the State since 1956 (Exhibit 1/o) till 2002-2003 (Exhibit 1) shows possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land at least till the year 2002 and thus it can be easily seen that the plaintiffs were in possession over the suit land since 1946 i.e. the date of settlement. He has submitted that the filing of return by ex-landlord and assessment of compensation by State authorities is done under the provisions of Sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 of Bihar Land Reforms Act,1950 and the orders passed under Sections 5, 6 & 7 of Bihar Land Reforms Act are appealable order but neither the State nor anybody else filed any appeal under Section 8 challenging Exhibit 10, and therefore Exhibit 10 has attained finality.
72025:JHHC:16267
15. The learned counsel has submitted that both the courts have dismissed the suit on the ground that humkumnama (Exhibit 11) is not a genuine document only for a reason that Sambat is mentioned in the said hukumnama and for this sole reason, the courts have held that the document is not genuine.
16. He submits that had both the courts taken into consideration Exhibit 10 i.e. compensation case which was initiated on the basis of return submitted by ex-landlord bearing Compensation Case No.14 of 1953-54, which fortifies the case of the plaintiffs with respect to the grant of humuknama (Exhibit 11) coupled by delivery of possession and issuance of zamindari rent receipt which created valid raiyati interest in favour of the plaintiffs over the suit property. The hukumnama was for two khatas i.e. khata nos.18 and 21 and these two khatas find place in Exhibit 10. The learned counsel has relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Patna High Court reported in AIR 1986 Pat 302 (Full Bench) (supra) paragraph 10 and (2005) 3 JCR 211 (supra) paragraph 5 and 8.
17. With respect to the 3rd substantial question of law, the learned counsel has submitted that the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit land from the date of settlement i.e. 1946 onwards and possession of plaintiffs was more than 50 years. The State government i.e. defendant nos.1 and 2 was having no right, authority or jurisdiction to settle the land to defendant nos.3 to 7 and therefore the settlement made in favour of the defendant nos.3 to 7 by defendant nos.1 and 2 was void and without any authority or jurisdiction over the land in question. It is submitted that it is well settled that even a decree or registered document which is otherwise void ab initio need not be set aside. Such decree does not strip the right of a party, who is the real owner and was not a signatory to the document in question. Merely because the defendant nos.1 and 2 had settled the land in favour of defendant nos.3 to 7, no right could devolve upon defendant nos.3 to 7, if the vendor i.e. the State, had no title to convey even if it was a registered document. He submits that the settlement was not through a registered document. He submits that such settlement by the State, who had no 8 2025:JHHC:16267 right, title, interest and possession over the property, is to be ignored as a worthless paper transaction only and the settlement in favour of defendant nos.3 to 7 by defendant nos.1 and 2 is void at the threshold and no step was required to be taken at all to seek setting aside of such settlements. He has relied upon the judgment passed by Orrisa High Court reported in (2005) SCC online Orisa 45 (Pragnya Rout Vs. Hemaprava Ray and Ors.) and submitted that it has been held that if the deed is void at the threshold, no steps need be taken to set it aside as the vendor may not have any title to convey. He has also relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the judgment of Surinder Kaur Vs. Ram Narula & Ors. decided on 04.01.2016 in RFA (OS) No.7 of 2014 to submit that if a person does not have authority to execute a deed or having such authority under certain circumstances which did not exist, executes a deed, it is not necessary to challenge the same. It can be treated as a non-existent document.
18. The learned counsel has submitted that the law as to whether any document is required to be challenged or not, has been ultimately settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prem Singh and others versus Birbal and others reported in (2006) 5 SCC 353 and has referred to Paragraph 16 of the said judgment to submit that it has been observed that when a document is void ab initio, a decree for setting aside the same would not be necessary as the same is non est in the eyes of law as it would be a nullity. He submits that in view of the aforesaid pronouncement of the judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prem Singh (supra), there was no need to challenge the settlements made in favour of the defendant nos.3 to 7 by defendant nos.1 and 2.
19. The learned counsel has referred to paragraph 15 of the plaint and has submitted that a specific plea was taken that the settlement made by the State government in favour of the private respondents is not only illegal, without jurisdiction but also not binding upon the plaintiffs. The learned counsel has submitted that the aforesaid pleading i.e., paragraph 15 of the plaint reveals that it was the specific 9 2025:JHHC:16267 case of the plaintiff that the settlement was void. From perusal of Section 34 of Specific Relief Act, it is apparent that the proviso only states that where the plaintiffs being able to seek further relief than mere declaration of title, omits to do so, then in such situation the court is prohibited from making any such declaration.
20. He submits that in the present case, the plaintiffs filed a case seeking declaration of right, title and interest and the plaintiffs also prayed for recovery of possession, and therefore, it cannot be said that the suit was barred by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. He submits that the relief was seeking confirmation/recovery of possession if the plaintiffs are not found in possession of the suit property.
21. He has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (1973) 2 SCC 60 (Ram Saran and Anr. Vs. Smt. Ganga Devi) and has submitted that although the case relates to the previous Specific Relief Act as it stood prior to 1963, but in the said case, only a declaration was sought, and therefore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the view that the suit was not maintainable since there was no relief seeking recovery of possession. Arguments of the State
22. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently opposed the prayer and has submitted that there are concurrent findings recorded by both the courts that the hukumnama is not the genuine document. He has also submitted that the sheet anchor of title of the plaintiffs is based on hukumnama. Once the hukumnama is found to be not genuine, then under such circumstances, the filing of return by the zamindar cannot confer any title upon the plaintiffs. He has further submitted that the return of the zamindar was also disbelieved by both the courts on account of cuttings and overwriting. So far as issuance of zamindari rent receipt is concerned, one of the zamindari rent receipts was of the year 1951, other was of the year 1954, the rent compensation case was filed in the year assessment 1953-1954 meaning thereby that the notification under Section 4 of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 must have been issued prior to 1953.
102025:JHHC:16267 Therefore, there was no question of issuance of any subsequent zamindari rent receipt in the year 1954. The learned counsel has also submitted that if the hukumnama is not genuine, then under such circumstances, any number of issuance of rent receipt by the zamindar has got no legal sanctity in the eyes of law, and issuance of rent receipt by itself do not confer any right, title, interest and possession with respect to the property. The learned counsel has also submitted that entries in record of right itself do not decide the title of the parties and the title was directly in dispute before the court. The hukumnama having been found to be an illegal document, therefore no reliance could have been placed on the zamindari rent receipts.
23. The learned counsel has also submitted that the plaintiffs have not produced any document showing assessment of rent in favour of the plaintiffs. Rather plaintiffs had only produced rent receipt. In absence of any order assessing rent in favour of the plaintiffs, mere possession of rent receipts was not sufficient and such rent receipts will not confer any title upon the plaintiffs. He has also submitted that so far as the assessment of compensation in favour of the zamindar is concerned, the assessment order by itself does not reveal that rent of the plaintiffs was ultimately fixed. If the rent of the plaintiffs was fixed, it ought to have been done by virtue of some order passed by the competent authority. He has submitted that the plaintiffs have failed to bring on record the basic documents to claim title over the property and hukumnama has been found to be not genuine document. He has also submitted that the weakness of the case of the plaintiffs is substantiated by none less than the witness produced by the plaintiffs themselves.
24. The learned counsel has also referred to paragraph 5 of examination-in-chief of P.W-7 and paragraphs 28 and 29 of his cross- examination, to submit that the plaintiffs themselves have failed to prove Exhibit 10, as it did not even contain the signature of the landlord nor did it contain any date. The learned counsel has also referred to the evidence of PW1 and has submitted that in the year 2006, he has stated that he was 70 years of age and corresponding 11 2025:JHHC:16267 sambat 1946 would date back to 1889 and during that time, he was not even born, although he has deposed that the settlement was signed by the ex-landlord in his presence.
25. The learned counsel submitted that both the learned courts have given concurrent findings regarding title against the plaintiffs after scrutinizing the materials on record. Neither the hukumnama was found to be genuine nor the return filed by the zamindar was proved, and therefore, no reliance can be placed on Exhibit 10.
26. The learned counsel has relied upon the judgments reported in (2014) 2 SCC 269 (Union of India and Ors. Vs. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. And Ors.) paragraphs 15 to 18 to submit that the plaintiffs have to make out a clear case to establish their claim and weakness of the defendants will not be a ground to decree the suit. On the same point, he has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (1964) SCC Online SC 313 corresponding to AIR 1965 SC 1506 para 8. The learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment reported in AIR 1955 SC 328 para 13 to submit that unregistered hukumnmana is an inadmissible piece of evidence and has also relied upon the judgment reported in 2022 (4) JBCJ 291 (H C) paras 21. The learned counsel has referred to the written notes of argument submitted in this case.
Arguments of the defendants nos.3 to7
27. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendants nos.3 to7 has adopted the arguments advanced on behalf of the respondent-State and submitted that the following facts are required to be looked into by this Court.
"i. The suit is barred under section 34 of the Specific Relief Act since the plaintiffs have not sought relief against settlement of suit land by the Govt. in favour of the Defendant no. 3 to 7.
ii) That since the settlement has been done in favour of Bhuneshwar Lal Agarwal in the year 1960-61 who sold the land to Chhunu Devi in the year 1978 and the original defendant no. 3 purchased the land from Chhunu Devi through registered sale deed по. 135 dated 7.1.1991 and got her name mutated in the revenue record and the settlement in favour of defendant no. 5 to 7 was made in the year 1986-87 and their name were also mutated in revenue record and there is a concurrent finding that original defendant no.3 to 7 are in possession of the suit land and 12 2025:JHHC:16267 therefore in absence of seeking any relief to set aside the settlement the suit is barred by the provision of section 31 of the Specific Relief Act (AIR 2010 SC 211).
iii) The Learned trial court given finding on the issue of barred under Specific Relief Act against the plaintiffs against which the plaintiffs not taken any plea ground before the first appellate court and therefore the finding on Issue no. V is final and conclusive against the plaintiffs.
Iv. There is concurrent finding of fact that the Hukumnama Ext. 11 and the return Ext. 10 and the zamindari rent receipts having not been supported with the date and jamabandi number are not genuine document and therefore no decree of right, title and interest as well as the confirmation / recovery of possession can be granted to the plaintiffs.
v) The Hukumnama is of Sambat year 1946 equivalent to the year 1889 of English Calander year when Anand Prakash Das was Mahant and Mahant Brahm Prakash Das was the zamindar and the zamindari rent receipts are of Sambat 2007(Ext.-2) and 2009 and 2010 (Ext.-2/a) which clarifies that the Hukumnama is not followed by rent receipt issued immediately after issuance of Hukumnama and therefore the plaintiff had no possession over the suit land and hence confer no title and possession over the suit land in terms of the judgment reported in AIR 1968 Pat 302 (Full Bench).
vi. That the P.W.1 Balkishun Ram has also deposed that the Hukumnama is of the Sambat 1946 and was prepared in his presence when he was about 25 years old. This deposition of the P.W.1 has rightly been not accepted by the learned trial court as well as first appellate court considering his age as 70 years at the time of deposition that is 20.01.2006 and even if it is presume that in the Hukumnama English calendar year 1946 is written then his age was only ten years in the year 1946 which makes his evidence false. Further the P.W.1 deposed that he has made state as a party in the suit for setting aside the illegal settlement made by the state, however no relief has been sought by the plaintiff for setting aside the settlement made in the year 1960-61 and 1986-87 and therefore the suit is clearly barred by section 34 of the Specific Relief Act.
vii) That so far as the Ext. 10 is concern, P.W.7 Mahant Gopal Das said to be successor of Ex-Landlord Brahm Prakash Das has admitted in para 28 of his deposition that there are cutting and over writings without initial signature on that return and on perusal of the trial court record it would transpire that Ext. 10 has been replaced by another documents and hence rightly not relied upon by the trial court as well as first appellate court.
viii) That the settlement has been taken place in the year 1960-61 and 1986-87, the plaintiffs cannot claim relief without seeking relief to set aside such instrument that too within three years from the date of knowledge. Admittedly the plaintiff came to know about those instrument in the year 1993 but not taken any step for setting aside those instrument within three years and therefore the suit is not maintainable on this score also.
132025:JHHC:16267
ix) That although the defendant no. 3 to 7 has been made party in the suit but no relief has been sought by the plaintiffs against the defendant no. 3 to 7 and hence the suit is bad for mis-joinder of party.
x) That on perusal of the documentary as well as oral evidence adduced by the original defendant no. 3 to 7 the learned trial court came to the conclusion that 2 acres land settle by the S.D.O. to Bhuneshwar Lal vide Case No. 27/1960-61 and again settlement made in favour of the defendant no. 5 to 7 by Case No. 27/1986-87 but no any objection was filed by the plaintiffs which clarifies that the plaintiffs where never in possession over suit land.
6. That there is a concurrent finding of fact that the Hukumnama produced by the plaintiffs are not genuine and they have also not been able to prove their actual possession over the suit land rather the plaintiffs witness have admitted the house and habitats of defendant no. 3 to 7 on the suit land and the state defendant no. 1 and 2 have supported the fact of settlement of land by grant of Parcha to Bhuneshwar Lal Agarwal and defendant no. 5, 6 and 7 and therefore the learned trial court as well as the learned first appellate court have rightly held that the plaintiffs have not got any right, title and interest over the suit land and hence the suit as well as civil appeal has rightly been dismissed and there is no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal. The only substantial question arises is that the suit is barred under the provisions of Specific Relief act."
28. He has relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2009) 6 SCC 160 (Abdul Rahim and Ors. Vs. Sk. Abdul Zabar and Ors.) para 29 to submit that the plaintiffs were seeking to establish his title and the same could not be established without challenging the settlement in favour of the private defendants, and therefore, it was necessary for the plaintiffs to challenge the settlement but they have purposely not done so as the suit would have been barred by limitation. The learned counsel submits that in such circumstances, Article 59 of the Limitation Act would have been attracted and the suit would have failed. He has referred to Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act and has submitted that the suit was barred by the provisions of Specific Relief Act.
29. The learned counsel has also submitted that the unless the declaration is sought with regard to the settlement being void, the plaintiffs could not have assumed that the settlement was void and therefore, in absence of any such declaration, the suit could not have been decreed in favour of the plaintiffs. The learned counsel has also 14 2025:JHHC:16267 submitted that admittedly, the private defendants are in possession of the property.
Findings of this Court.
30. Case of the plaintiffs a. The case of the plaintiffs as per the plaint was that one Mahanth Brahm Prakash Dash was the ex-landlord of Village Pakaria under Khewat No. 3 the land under Khata No. 21 Plot No. 106 measuring 5.44 acres was his gair mazarua khas land which was settled in favour of one Badamia Devi vide unregistered Hukumnama (exhibit-
11) on salami which was followed by Zamindari rent receipt (Exhibit-2 and 2/a) and she was put in possession on "13 Roj Chait Badi, Sambat Year 1946".
Badamia Devi continued in possession till her life and when her husband died, Badamia Devi having no issue started living with her own sister-cum-gotini Bandhia Pasin [wife of Laxman Pasi] and died in her house in English Calendar year 1960.
The husband of Badamia Devi were four brothers, namely, Bandhu Pasi, Laxman Pasi, Chulhan Pasi and Dukhhi Pasi;
Dukkhi Pasi died issueless;
Bandhu Pasi and his wife Badamia Devi dies issueless; Plaintiff No. 1 claimed to be the son of Laxman Pasi and Bandhia Pasin who looked after Badamia Devi till her last and also performed her last rituals and Badamia Devi treated plaintiff No. 1 as her son and thus property devolved in Bandhia Pasin and on her death, the plaintiff No. 1 along with his son plaintiff No. 2 who came in possession of the suit property.
b. Laxman Pasi died leaving behind his son plaintiff no.1 Balkishun Pasi. Plaintiff no.2 Mahendra Pasi is son of Balkishun Pasi. Bandhia Pasi, wife of Laxman Pasi and Badamia Pasi, wife of Bandhu Pasi were own sisters. Bandhu Pasi died issueless and when he was seriously ill, he sold his house in 1939 on account of financial crisis to one Jayanti Gowalin. After death of Bandhu Pasi, his wife Badamia Pasi started living with her sister Bandhia Pasi. It is the case of the plaintiffs that Bandhia Pasi out of love and affection had taken 15 2025:JHHC:16267 settlement of 6.90 acres of land in the name of her sister Badamia Pasi.
c. It was further case of the plaintiff that the ex-landlord after vesting of zamindari submitted return wherein Badamia Pasi has been shown as settlee of 6.90 acres of land including 5.44 acre of land of plot No.106; after vesting of zamindari, name of Badamia Pasi was mutated in the Circle Office, Chatra. It was the case of the plaintiffs that since Badamia Pasi had no issue, she treated plaintiff no.1 as her son; she died in the year 1960 whose last rites was performed by plaintiff no.1 and after death of Badamia Pasi, plaintiff no.1 came in possession of the entire land of 6.90 acres. d. As per the plaintiffs, the cause of action arose on 20.06.1992 and thereafter when the plaintiffs came to know that Anchal Adhikari, Chatra vide settlement case no.27 of 60-61 indicated that two acres of land was settled by S.D.O. Chatra in favour of one Bhuneshwar Lal who sold the land to Chunu Devi (defendant no.8) and 3 acres of land of plot no.106 was settled to defendant nos.5 to 7 vide settlement case no.27 of 1986-87. There have been several proceedings under section 144/145 of Cr.P.C. with one or the other private defendant and/or their predecessors in interest and possession of the plaintiffs was declared on each occasion. It was the specific case of the plaintiffs that after vesting of estate in the State Badamia Devi was recognized as raiyat and the government issued rent receipt in her favour for the aforesaid land of 5.44 acres and after the death of Badamia Devi, the plaintiffs paid rent up to date for which rent receipts as contained in exhibit-1 series were issued in the name of Badamia Devi and the plaintiffs claimed to be in physical possession of the suit land. It was the further case of the plaintiffs that the ex- landlord had filed return (exhibit-10) and had received compensation in which at serial No. 26, the name of Badamia Devi was mentioned as raiyat. However, the plaintiffs came to know that the government had settled altogether 2 acres of land to one Bhuneshwar Lal Agrawal and one acre each to defendant Nos. 5 to 7 who were 16 2025:JHHC:16267 disturbing the possession of the plaintiffs and consequently the suit was filed.
31. Case of the defendants
32. The defendant Nos. 3, 5, 6 and 7 filed written statement and pleaded that the suit land was recorded as Gair Mazarua Khas Land which vested in the government unsettled and consequently the government settled 2 acres of land to Bhuneshwar Lal Agrawal and 1 acre each to defendant Nos. 5, 6 and 7 and put them in possession. Later on, Bhuneshwar Lal Agrawal sold the property to defendant No. 3 for a valuable consideration and defendant No. 3 came in possession and constructed house over a portion of the land and rest was under
her peaceful possession and she was paying rent to the government. The defendant No. 4 is the husband of the Etwaria Devi against whom no relief was claimed. The defendant Nos. 5, 6 and 7 claimed to be members of scheduled castes and landless persons and they claimed that the government had settled the land and granted parcha to them measuring an area of 1 acre each and jamabandi was created and they were paying rent and were in possession of the respective land and were leaving there.
33. The State of Jharkhand was defendant Nos. 1 and 2 who also filed written statement in support of defendant Nos. 3, 5, 6 and 7 and stated that the settlement was genuine and on vesting of Estate the land was settled to Bhuneshwar Lal Agrawal and to defendant Nos. 5, 6 and 7. It was their specific case that the return, the claimed jamabandi and issuance of rent receipt in favour of Badamia Pasin and also in favour of defendant No. 9 to 12 was denied and it was pleaded that they were forged and fabricated and they were also not in possession. It was admitted by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 that the ex-
landlord was Brahm Prakash Das but it was stated to be false that ex- landlord settled the land in Khata No. 27 plot No. 106 area 5.44 acres and other plots by virtue of Hukumnama in Sambat 1946 in favour of Badamia Devi. It was their specific case that the said land was never settled by ex-landlord and after vesting of zamindari, the said land vested unsettled in the State. The hukumnama and zamindari rent 17 2025:JHHC:16267 receipt were forged and fabricated documents. It was stated that Badamia Devi never came in possession of the land and the land was in control of the State Government and the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 supported the settlement made by them. It was also denied that the name of Badamia Devi was placed in the return filed by the ex- landlord and that the State Government had granted rent receipt in favour of Badamia Devi. It was asserted that there was no proof that Badamia Devi had adopted Balkisun Pasi as her son. The possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land was denied. It was denied that demand was opened in favour of Badamia Devi in Register-II and it was asserted that the Anchal Adhikari had never examined the paper of Badamia Devi and never found that the settlement was made by the ex-landlord for an area of 5.44 acres in plot No. 106 in favour of Badamia Devi. It was further stated that the State Authority upon proper examination of the official records found that the claim of Badamia Devi was forged and manufactured.
34. The defendant Sekhawat Hussain and others were interveners in the case. They pleaded that the suit was barred by limitation, adverse possession and the suit was hit by the provision of Specific Reliefs Act and it was bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties and was hit by the provision of Benami Transactions Act, 1988. It was stated that the alleged Hukumnama of Sambat 1946 followed by rent receipts in the name of Badamia Devi were forged and manufactured document. The Sambat 1946 corresponds to 1889 when neither Brahm Prakash Dash was the ex-landlord nor Badamia Devi had taken birth and hence the question of settlement under the alleged Hukumnama did not arise. The survey record of right was finally published in the year 1910-11 when the ex-landlord of Khewat No. 3 was recorded as Randhir Prasad Dash who had not settled the land. Hence the alleged Hukumnama was an illegal document. The intervener defendants stated that the true fact was that the land measuring an area 41.54 acres consisting of 15 plots stood recorded during the last cadastral survey and settlement operation under Gair Mazarua of khata No. 21, khewat No. 3 and after death of Randhir 18 2025:JHHC:16267 Prakash Dash, the estate was succeeded by his chela Mahant Shiv Prakash Dash and after his death it was succeeded by Brahm Prakash Dash. Habib Mia was a settled raiyat with the oral permission of Mahanth Brahm Prakash Dash who started to reclaim the land of total area 12.21 acres consisting of 3 kathas including 5.44 acres land of khata No. 21 plot No. 106. Thereafter, Habib Mian approached Mahanth Brahm Prakash Dash for a raiyati settlement in the name of his wife Anzuman Khatun and the landlord after being satisfied and on receipt of salami in the raiyati granted Hukumnama dated 06.05.1940 followed by grant of rent receipt and settled the suit land and the settlee came in possession by making payment of rent to the ex- landlord. Thereafter, the mother of the defendant Bibi Anzuman Khatun became the raiyat and the Anchal Adhikari after holding enquiry opened the demand in the name of Bibi Anzuman Khatun and the rent was being paid by her who recognized tenant in possession. It was his further case that some mistake had crept in the demand register while it was carried over to another demand register and as such Bibi Anzuman Khatun filed an application to the Anchal Adhikari, Chatra for correction which was registered as Misc. Case No. 25/1969-70 and after completing all procedure final order dated 14.11.1969 was passed and rent receipt for land measuring 12.21 acres consisting of land of khata No. 20, 15 and 21 was issued and since then the rent was being continuously paid. It was also asserted that even if it is considered that Bandhia Pasin had taken alleged settlement in the name of her sister Badamia Devi then also the suit was hit by Benami Transaction Act, 1988. It was further stated that Mahanth Brahm Prakash Dash never filed return and the return filed by the plaintiffs exhibit-10 are forged and fabricated document and Badamia Devi in collusion with Anchal staff started to obtained rent receipt which was forged and fabricated. It was also asserted that the plaintiff no.1 was never adopted by Badamia Devi nor was ever treated as son of Badamia Devi and Balkisun Pasi being the sister's son was not entitled to succeed the interest of Badamia Devi. It was 19 2025:JHHC:16267 stated that defendant Nos. 3 to 8 never came in possession over the land measuring 5.44 acres plot No. 106 under khata No. 21.
35. The learned trial court framed the following issues for consideration: -
I. Whether the suit of plaintiffs is maintainable in its present form?
II. Whether the plaintiffs have got valid cause of action for filing the suit?
III. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is barred by law of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence.
IV. Whether the suit of plaintiffs is barred by law of limitation and adverse possession?
V. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is barred by provisions of Specific Relief Act?
VI. Whether the suit is under valued which is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court?
VII. Whether the suit of plaintiffs is bad for non-joinder and misjoinder of necessary parties?
VIII. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to right, interest and possession over the suit land on the basis of heirs of the person whom hukumnama was granted by ex-landlord in Sambat 1946?
IX. Whether the state has right to allot the suit land in favour of defendant No. 3 to 7?
X. Whether the defendant No. 9 to 12 have got suit land from ancestor Bibi Anzuman Khatun whom 05.44 acre suit land was granted by ex-landlord through hukumnama?
XI. Whether the Hukumnama granted by ex-landlord Brahm Prakash Das to Bibi Anjuman Khatun is valid or not?
XII. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get relief as sought for?
36. The learned trial court summarized the name of the documents and the name of the witnesses filed on behalf of the plaintiffs in paragraph 11; on behalf of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in paragraph 12; on behalf of defendant Nos. 3 and 4 in paragraph 13; on behalf of 20 2025:JHHC:16267 defendant Nos. 5 to 7 in paragraph 14 and on behalf of defendant Nos. 9 to 12 in paragraph 15 of the judgment.
37. Amongst various documents which are relevant for the purposes of this case, exhibit-10 which is the return filed by the ex- landlord in Compensation Case No. 14/52-54; Exhibit-11 is the unregistered Hukumnama said to have been issued by ex-landlord Brahm Prakash Dash whereby the suit land including other lands were claimed to have been settled in favour of Badamia Pasin issued in Sambat year 1946 as mentioned in the hukumnama itself; Exhibit-14 is the certified copy of the registered patta No. 559 dated 12.07.1995, Exhibit 16 is the certified copy of the khatiyan. The plaintiff No. 1 was examined as P.W.1. Apart from other witnesses, P.W. 2 was Bitu Bhuian; P.W.-7 was Gopal Prasad Dash. On behalf of defendant Nos. 1 and 2, only one witness was examined.
Findings of the learned trial court:
38. The learned trial court considered the Issue No.VIII first.
For the sake of convenience this issue has been taken first. It has been recorded that Ext. 1 series and Ext. 2 series are revenue rent receipts including jamindari rent receipt in the name of Mostt. Badamia Pasin which is of khata No. 18 and 21 but no khata number has been mentioned in revenue receipt. Ext. 11 is Hukumnama on the basis of which the plaintiffs claimed that ex- landlord Brahm Prakash Dash settled the suit land including other lands in favour of Badamia Pasin. The learned trial court observed that as per this hukumnama, the aforesaid land was settled in Sambat 1946, meaning thereby that the land was settled by the ex- landlord to Badamia Pasin in the English Calander year 1889 and at that point of time Brahm Prakash Dash was not the landlord and Badamia Pasin was also not born and therefore the learned trial court posed a question as to how Brahm Prakash Dash could have settled the land to Badamia Pasin. The learned trial court also considered that as per the plaint, the plaintiffs have given contradictory statement; as per hukumnama, land was settled to Badamia Pasin but plaintiffs have mentioned in para 5 of the plaint 21 2025:JHHC:16267 that one Bandhia Pasin, sister of Badamia Pasin took settlement of 6.90 acre in the name of her sister Badamia Pasin and after death of husband of Badamia Pasin, she started living with her sister Bandhia Pasin and held that hukumnama appeared to be doubtful. The learned trial court observed that on perusal of Ext. 10, it appeared that the ex-landlord has filed return of khata No. 21 of plot No. 106 and khata No. 18 in the name of Badamia Pasin. P.W.6 is also formal witness who has proved revenue rent receipt and some other documents and hukumnama. This witness has proved the zamindari rent receipt and hukumnama on the basis 30 years old document. But this witness does not belong to the family of the plaintiffs then how these documents came in the custody of this witness which has not been explained by him.
P.W.7 is Gopal Prasad Dash, who has proved compensation case No. 14/1953-54. The learned trial court recorded that he has stated that there is over-writing in return but there was no initial signature upon cutting and over-writing and there was no signature of Surya Narayan Prasad in document who is said to have prepared the document. The learned trial court also considered that this witness has stated that there are remaining gairmazarua land in village Pakaria of State and many people have been settled land by the Government and observed that it showed that State has settled the land to different raiyats of Gaimazarua khas land situated in village Pakaria. The learned trial court also recorded that this witness has clearly stated that hukumnama grant to Badamia Pasin in of Sambat 1946 and in Sambat 1946 Mahant was Anand Prakash Dash but as per plaintiff Brahm Prakash Dash was Mahanth who settled the land to Badamia Pasin. The learned trial court considered the sole witness of the State who was the Amin in Anchal Office, Chatra stated that disputed land was Gairmazarua khas land as recorded in khatiyan as forest and after abolition of zamindari, the said land vested in government and government was in possession of the said land; Plaintiffs have filed forged and fabricated hukumnama; Name of Badamia Pasin is not recorded in demand Register nor revenue 22 2025:JHHC:16267 receipt has been issued. He has also stated that land of plot No. 106 was settled to defendant Nos. 5 to 7, 01 acre each, through Parcha by settlement case No. 27/86-87 and 02-acre land was purchased by defendant No. 3 Etwaria Devi of the said khata and plot through sale deed and in cross-examination, the witness explained that Chhunu Devi purchased the land from Bhuneshwar Lal and Etwaria Devi purchased the land of Chhunu Devi. He has stated that at present, suit land is in possession of defendants and revenue receipts was being issued in their name. From the evidence of this witness, the learned trial court observed that the disputed land was in possession of defendant Nos. 3 to 7 and nothing had come in cross-examination in favour of plaintiffs. The defendant nos. 3 to 4 had also produced certain documents in support of their right, title, interest and possession to the extent of 2 acres of the suit land including the registered back-to-back sale deeds/order of settlement
- exhibit-A, E, G and revenue receipts. On behalf of defendant Nos. 5 to 7 also documents were produced which were the parchas granted by the Government in their favour by which 01 acre land each was settled in khata No. 13 of plot No. 106 and it was observed by the learned trial court that on perusal of this exhibit, it appears that the land was settled to defendant No. 5 to 7 of khata No. 13 plot No. 106 but as per these defendants khata No. 13 was wrongly mentioned inadvertently in place of khata No. 21 which was rectified as it was clear from perusal of other exhibits.
39. The learned trial court ultimately recorded findings with regards to Issue No.VIII as under: -
" .............On perusal of evidence available on record it appears that defendant no. 3 to 7 are in possession over the suit State land allotted to them by ex-landlord which have been admitted by the plaintiffs witnesses also and which has been proved by the documents filed on behalf of the plaintiffs as well as defendants. Although plaintiffs have filed revenue receipt regarding suit 23 2025:JHHC:16267 land but as per Ext. D it has been stated by learned Addl. Collector that revenue receipts No. 166944 year 1986-87 to 1991-92 and revenue receipts No. 166865 (year 1979-80) have been issued by two continue volume which create suspicion.
Before issuing revenue receipts it is necessary that demand be opened in the name of plaintiffs but in this regard no any documents have been produced on behalf of the plaintiffs which goes to show that plaintiffs have applied before the competent authority regarding opening the demand.
On perusal of Ext. F, it appears that learned L.R.D.C. has given finding that hukumnama and return of plaintiffs have not been verified by compensation case by Anchal Adhikari Halka Karmchari Amin and Anchal Adhikari have verified on spot and disputed land is found in possession of defendant No. 3 to 7.
On perusal of evidence, it also appears that learned S.D.O. has settled the land to one Bhuneshwar Lal by Case No. 27/1960-61 and again he settled the land to defendant No. 5 to 7 by settlement case No. 27/1986-87 but no any objection has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff, it mean at that time plaintiffs were not in possession over the suit land. Hence I find that hukumnama produced on behalf of the plaintiffs are not genuine documents, so on the basis of said hukumnama plaintiffs have not got any right title and interest over the suit land.
As such Issue No. VIII is hereby decided against the plaintiffs."
While deciding issue nos. X and XI with respect to the claim of the intervenor defendants, the learned trial court after considering the materials on record held that the land appertaining to khata No. 21 plot No. 106 was not settled to defendant Nos. 9 to 12 and rejected their claim and concluded as follows:-
".................On perusal of evidence of witnesses it appears that defendant No. 3 to 7 are in possession over the suit land as it has been stated 24 2025:JHHC:16267 by the defendants himself as well as other independent witnesses and defendant No. 9 to 12 have not been able to establish the fact that Anjuman Bibi has been settled 12.21 acre land including the suit land through hukumnama by ex- landlord. Hence, hukumnama is not appears to be genuine document.
As such Issue No. X and XI are hereby decided against the defendant No. 9 to 12 and in favour of defendant No. 3 to 7."
ISSUE NO. IX:
"Defendant No. 3 to 7 have taken plea that the suit land was gairmazarua khash land and after abolition of jamindari land is vested to State and State had settled the land to defendant No. 5 to 7 through parcha and state also settled the land to one Bhuneshwar Lal and that land was purchased by Etwaria Devi. In support of their pleadings defendants No. 3 to 7 have produced documentary as well as oral evidence. On perusal of the same it appears that the suit land was settled by the State to defendant No. 3 to 7 which is legally settled and State has right to settle the land to landless person as per provisions of C.N.T. Act.
As such Issue No. IX is hereby decided in favour of defendants No. 3 to 7."
ISSUE No. I and II:
"As per evidence available on record I come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have not been able to prove that the he has entitled to the suit land. Hence there is no valid cause of action to file the suit. Hench, suit is not maintainable in its present form.
As such Issue No. I and II is hereby decided against the plaintiffs."
ISSUE NO. IV:
"Defendants have taken plea that the suit is bad by law of limitation and adverse possession. As per plaintiffs cause of action arose on 20.06.1992 uptill now 30.07.2003 when Cr.Rev. No. 57/01 has been filed. Thereafter the suit has been filed in the year 2005. Hence, suit is filed within limitation.25
2025:JHHC:16267 Defendant No. 3 to 7 has taken plea that they are in possession over the suit land for more than 12 years and as per evidence available on record it transpires that after settlement the land they are continued in possession over the suit land for more than 12 years. Hence, defendant No. 3 to 7 are also entitled over the suit land on the ground of adverse possession.
As such Issue No. IV is hereby decided accordingly."
ISSUE NO. V:
"Defendants have taken plea that the suit is barred by provisions of Specific Relief Act. In this case plaintiffs have filed the suit for right, title and possession over the suit land but they have been unable to establish his case regarding their right, title over the suit land. Rather defendants No. 3 to 7 have established the fact that they are in possession over the suit land.
As such Issue No. V is hereby decided against the plaintiffs."
st The 1 appeal.
40. This Court finds that the learned trial court rejected the claim of the plaintiffs and also rejected the claim of defendant nos.9 to 12 and was of the view that the settlement made in favour of the defendant nos.3, 5 to 7 or their predecessor in interest was in accordance with the law. It is not in dispute that defendant no.4 is the husband of defendant no.3. The learned trial court also found that the defendant nos.3 to 7 were in possession of the property claimed by them through settlements. Consequently, both the plaintiffs as well as the defendant nos.9 to 12 were aggrieved by the judgment of the learned trial court.
41. The plaintiffs filed appeal which was numbered as Civil (Title) Appeal No.15 of 2012 and the defendant nos.9 to 12 filed their separate appeal which was numbered as Civil (Title) Appeal No.17 of 2012. The learned first appellate court has dismissed both the appeals. However, in this 2nd appeal, we are concerned with the appeal filed by the plaintiffs' appellants which arises out of dismissal of 1st appeal filed by the plaintiffs being Civil (Title) Appeal No.15 of 2012.
262025:JHHC:16267
42. This Court finds that since both the 1st appeals (1st appeal filed by the plaintiffs and the 1st appeal filed by the defendant nos. 9 to 12) were taken up together, the learned first appellate court with the consent of the parties had framed altogether 5 points for determination and the point of determination no.2 was relating to the claim of defendant nos.9 to 12 with which we are not concerned. However, the point of determination framed by the learned first appellate court in paragraph 18 is quoted as under:
1. Whether the settlement of suit land to Bedamia Pasin is genuine and if yes, whether the plaintiff/appellants legally succeeded on it on her death and are still in possession?
2. Whether the Ext A-J (Hukumnama granted to Bibi Anjuman Khatun) for the suit land on 06.05.1940 by the ex-landlord is genuine and if yes, whether the defendants No. 9 to 12 (appellants in C.A. No. 17/2005) are in peaceful possession over the suit land?
3. Whether the parcha granted to defendant No. 5, 6 & 7 and Bhuneshwar Lal Agrawal by the government is proper and if yes, whether they and the vendee respondent No. 3 are in possession of their respective settled/purchased lands?
4. Whether the appeals are fit to be allowed and judgment of the learned lower court is required to be interfered with?
5. Whether either set of the appellants are entitled for any relief?
43. Considering the substantial questions of law framed by this Court, the point of determination no.1 as framed by the learned 1st appellate court is important which has been decided vide paragraph nos.19 to 32 of the impugned judgment. Upon perusal of the discussion made and findings recorded in connection with point of determination no.1, the learned 1st appellate court has recorded that plaintiffs claimed in the plaint that ex-landlord had settled 5.44 acres of land to Badamia Pasin and put her in possession; she died intestate; Bandhia Pasin was her full sister, who were mother of plaintiff no.1; Badamia Pasin was wife of Bandhu Pasi (uncle of plaintiff no.1) and after death of Bandhu Pasi, Badamia Pasin lived with Bandhia Pasin 27 2025:JHHC:16267 and it was claimed by the plaintiffs that the property devolved in the plaintiffs' mother or father and the plaintiff no.1 claimed to be in possession of the property and paid rent in the name of Badamia Pasin.
44. The learned 1st appellate court also recorded that the claim of the plaintiffs is based on Exhibit 11 (hukumnama) followed by possession, zamindari rent receipt and after vesting submission of return (Exhibit 10), issuance of government rent receipt etc. and reliance was also placed on the case of Most. Ugni which is the judgment reported in AIR 1968 Patna 302 (full Bench) in connection with which specific substantial question of law (ii) has been framed by this court.
45. The learned 1st appellate court recorded that it was an admitted fact that Brahma Prakash Dash was the ex-landlord in the year 1946. Badamia Pasin was wife of Bandhu Pasin and Bandhia Pasin was sister of Badamia Pasin, and Bandhia Pasin was the mother of Plaintiff No. 1. It was also admitted fact that Bandhu Pasi died issueless in the lifetime of Badamia Pasin.
46. In paragraph 20, the learned 1st appellate court after having recorded aforesaid facts framed question as to whether the properties of Badamia Pasin vested in the plaintiffs? held in the said paragraph that the claim of the plaintiffs was not in consonance with the principle of law under Hindu Succession Act. It is also important to note that the plaintiffs also claimed in the suit that Bandhia Pasin had taken the settlement through sada hukumnama (exhibit-11) in the name of Badamia Pasin and also that Badamia Pasin treated the plaintiff no.1 as her son. This Court finds that no substantial question of law has been framed in connection with such finding recorded in paragraph 20 and the finding has attained finality and accordingly this point does not require any discussion.
47. Further, the learned 1st appellate court while considering the hukumnama (Exhibit-11) recorded in paragraph 21 of the impugned judgment that the plaintiffs pleaded that hukumnama (Exhibit-11) was granted to Badamia Pasin on "13 Roj chait Badi Sambat 1946", 28 2025:JHHC:16267 which as per the English calendar year will fall in the year 1889 and accordingly hukumnama (Exhibit-11) has been treated as of the year 1889. The learned court also recorded that in the year 1889, neither Badamia Pasin was born nor Brahma Prakash Dash was ex-landlord and, on this ground, hukumnama (Exhibit-11) has been disbelieved by the learned 1st appellate court.
48. The learned 1st appellate court further recorded that the pleading was not amended although the trial court's judgment was challenged on this point and it was argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that by mistake, scriber had mentioned Samvat 1946 instead of English calendar year 1946 in the hukumnama (Exhibit-11). It was argued that instead of Samvat year, the year mentioned in hukumnama (Exhibit-11) should be considered as English calendar year. The learned 1st appellate court recorded that it stood admitted by the appellants that Samvat year 1946 was equivalent to English calendar year 1889 and in the year 1889, neither Brahma Prakash Dash was ex-landlord nor Badamia Pasin was born, nor hukumnama (Exhibit-11) could be executed.
49. With the aforesaid background, the learned 1st appellate court went on to examine as to whether writing of Samvat year in hukumnama (Exhibit-11) was only a mistake of pen or it was a mistake of fact, although admittedly, no amendment was carried out in the plaint to this effect that the Samvat year mentioned in the hukumnama (Exhibit-11) was an error and it ought to have been English Calander year. The learned 1st appellate court recorded that hukumnama (Exhibit-11) was scribed by one Rameshwar Pd. Sinha, who had clearly mentioned in his own pen in Devanagari script the date of this document as "Chait Badi 13 Sambat 1946 Saal" and ultimately recorded that it nowhere denotes the English calendar year of 1946.
50. The learned 1st appellate court further considered the two Exhibits i.e. Exhibit 2 and 2/a, which were zamindari rent receipts, and after elaborate discussion in paragraph 23 with regard to its content and comparison of English calendar year and Sambat year, 29 2025:JHHC:16267 recorded a finding that the argument of the learned counsel regarding mistake of pen in writing Samvat year in place of English calendar year was not acceptable and rejected such plea raised by the plaintiffs/appellants. Thus, the learned 1st appellate court by referring to materials on record, rejected the plea of the plaintiffs/appellants that there was a mistake in writing the year of its issuance with respect to hukumnama (Exhibit-11), and their claim that it was issued in English calendar year 1946, and not Sambat year 1946 (equivalent to English calendar year 1889) was rejected and consequently, the hukumnama (Exhibit-11) itself was held to be not a genuine document.
51. The learned 1st appellate court thereafter considered the government rent receipts, which were also considered by the learned trial court on the ground that these documents were more than 30 years old and there could be presumption in favour of the plaintiffs, but the learned 1st appellate court observed that these documents were not proved by any competent witness in presence of whom these documents were prepared, and further observed that these rent receipts alone could not be relied upon as proof of possession of the plaintiffs on the suit property, more so when the plaintiffs did not prove the holding (jamabandi) numbers of the suit land which was said to be created in the name of Badamia Pasin by the competent officer.
52. The learned 1st appellate court thereafter considered the oral evidence and has inter alia observed that P.W.4 identified several rent receipts of the year 1991, 1995, 1997, 2002 in one stroke, but none of these rent receipts were issued in his presence as per paragraph 7 of his cross-examination and, according to him, jamabandi number was also not mentioned in any of the rent receipts. The learned court observed that P.W.-4 has not proved himself to be competent witness to prove the genuineness of the rent receipts also as contained in Exhibit 1 series. This observation has been made in paragraph 27 of the judgment passed by the learned 1st appellate court.
53. The learned court also considered the evidence of PW7, who is Mahant Gopal Das and is said to be successor of ex-landlord Brahma Prakash Das, in paragraph 29 of the impugned judgment wherein it 30 2025:JHHC:16267 has been observed that, according to PW7, Brahma Prakash Dash died in the year 1975 and in Compensation Case No.14 of 1953-54 ( return in compensation case is Exhibit 10) he had submitted return of village Pakaria and at Serial No. 27, name of Badamia Pasin has been mentioned which relates to the land under Khata Nos. 18 and 21. It has been recorded that P.W-7 has deposed that the return was signed by ex-landlord in his presence but admitted that there are cuttings and overwriting without initial signature on that return. He has also deposed that though the return was scribed by Suraj Narayan Prasad, but his signature was not available on the return. The learned court also considered the fact that PW7 in his evidence had admitted that in the hukumnama (Exhibit-11), the settlement was done in Samvat year 1946 and in Samvat year 1946 Anand Prakash Das was the Mahant. The learned court considered the evidence of PW7 and recorded that PW7 was not born in Samvat year 1946 when hukumnama (Exhibit-
11) came into existence and ultimately recorded that this witness had no correct knowledge about the relevant facts and he had come to depose with vested interest and he had admitted in paragraph 2 that plaintiffs had produced him as witness. The learned 1st appellate court ultimately recorded that PW7 was not a reliable witness on the point of filing or of genuineness of the return.
54. The learned court also considered the various aspects regarding possession and observed that no reliable witness was produced on behalf of the plaintiffs/appellants to prove that they were in actual physical possession of the suit land when the cause of action was pleaded to have arisen.
55. The learned 1st appellate court has also rejected the reliance placed by the plaintiffs on the Partition Suit No.19 of 1987 fought amongst the plaintiffs and other family members of the extended family of the plaintiffs. The learned 1st appellate court also recorded in paragraph no. 31 of the impugned judgment that plaintiffs cannot be benefited by the weakness in the case of the defendants and the plaintiffs had to stand on their own pleading and evidences independently. Defect in the document of the defendants, does not 31 2025:JHHC:16267 entitle the plaintiffs to have decree on the suit without proving his own title and possession by his own documents and proof. The learned 1st appellate court ultimately recorded the finding with regard to point of determination no.1 in paragraph 32 as follows:
"....On the above fact and law of succession as discussed above, it can safely be concluded that hukumnama Exhibit 11 and the return Ext. 10 and the zamindari rent receipts and the government rent receipts having not been supported with the dates and jamabandi numbers, are not reliable documents and no decree of right, title and interest as well as the confirmation/recovery of possession can be granted to the plaintiffs. The learned lower court has given the same finding with his own reasonings but has arrived at the same conclusion. Thus, point no. 1 is decided against the appellants/plaintiffs that the settlement of suit land to Bedamia Devi through Ext.11 is not genuine and the plaintiffs have not inherited the said property on her death and are not in possession of the same."
56. Point nos. III, IV, V were decided as follows:
"Point No. III : On consideration of point No. I and II it is apparent that hukumnama of both sets of appellants are not found to be genuine as per law and none of them are able to prove their actual physical possession on it. Though both of them have claimed their separate respective possession but their witnesses have admitted the house and habitats of defendant No. 3 to 7 on the suit land and the State defendant No. 1 and 2 have supported the fact of settlement of land by grant of parcha to Bhuneshwar Lal Agrawal and defendant No. 5, 6 and 7. Defendant NO. 8 had purchased 2 acres of land from Bhuneshwar Lal Agrawal in the year 1972 which is not challenged as yet and defendant No. 3 has purchased the said land from defendant No. 8 is undisputed fact. Without any explanation, the appellant 1st set have not made Bhuneshwar Lal Agrawal as party to the suit and therefore, that part of transaction has remained unchallenged in the eyes of law. Therefore, this point is decided against both sets of appellants that defendant No. 3 to 7 are held to be in actual physical possession of the suit land on an area of 5 acres of land. As because the sale deed of Bhuneshwar Lal Agrawal is not challenged, thus it 32 2025:JHHC:16267 is further held that Chhunu Devi had right to execute the sale deed (Ext.A) to defendant No. 3.
Point No. IV : On careful consideration of the judgment of the lower court, it appears that the learned court has considered all these laws and facts involved in the suit and has come to the right conclusion that Ext. 11 and Ext. AJ are not the genuine documents and they are not in actual physical possession and has dismissed the suit on contests. Therefore, I find no infirmity in the judgment and decree of the learned lower court and thus hold that it does not require any interference and is fit to be confirmed. Thus, this point is also decided against the appellants. Point No. V: As discussed above as because the case of both sets of appellants are found to be without merit, it is further held that they are not entitled to get any further relief/s. However, from the judgment of the learned lower court it appears that the suit has been dismissed on contest but without costs. It is evident from the records that the defendant No. 3 to 7 are from the lower levels of the society and are in possession of the suit land but by creating simultaneous forged documents, the appellants have continued this litigation since the year 2005. Therefore, the appellants 1st set are liable to pay the cost of litigation. Therefore, it is further held that the appellants 1st set are liable to pay the costs of litigation to the respondents/defendant No. 3 to 7. Thus, this point is also decided accordingly against the appellants."I.A. No. 9784 of 2024
57. This Court finds that Interlocutory application being I.A. No.9784 of 2024 has been filed by the appellants under Order XLI Rule 27 of Code of Civil Procedure seeking to adduce additional evidence before this Court by submitting that return filed under the provisions of Bihar Land Reforms Act was submitted in Compensation Case No. 14 of 1953-54 and the return has been marked as Exhibit-10 but the additional evidence was produced to bring on record the certified copy of Register-II to submit that from Register-II it could be evident that suit property was mutated in the name of Badamia Pasin and her name was also entered in Register-II.
332025:JHHC:16267
58. However, the perusal of the interlocutory application does not reveal as to why such a document was not produced at the trial or even at the first appellate proceedings which is the final court of both, the fact and the law. Further alongwith the interlocutory application only a photocopy of the document has been filed and the certified copy has not been filed for the reasons best known to the appellants. Although, in the interlocutory application while annexing the document it has been stated that the certified copy was not available at the relevant point of time and the same has been made available only recently but nothing has been mentioned as to why no effort was made to bring it on record before the learned trial court / the learned 1st appellate court.
59. Otherwise also this Court does not require the said document to pronounce the judgment in the present case, particularly in view of the fact that Sada Hukumnana (Exhibit-11) which is the basis of the claim of the plaintiffs has been disbelieved by both the courts by citing reasons and no substantial question of law has been framed in connection with such finding which has attained finality. This Court is of the considered view that once the Sada-Hukumnana (Exhibit-11), which is the sheet anchor of the claim of the plaintiffs, has been disbelieved, the additional evidence sought to be brought on record at second appellate stage through interlocutory application is not required by this Court to decide the substantial questions of law involved in this case and pronounce the judgment. Consequently, interlocutory application seeking to adduce additional evidence at this 2nd appellate stage being I.A No. 9784 of 2024 is dismissed. 3rd Substantial question of law.
60. The learned 1st appellate court apparently did not frame any point for determination as to whether the suit was barred by the provisions of Section 31 or Section 34 of Specific Relief Act. However, it is important to note that the learned trial court framed a specific issue as to whether the suit was barred by the provisions of Specific Relief Act and the same was decided vide issue no.V against the plaintiffs by holding that the plaintiffs have been unable to establish the case regarding their right, title over the suit land. The 34 2025:JHHC:16267 finding of the learned trial court has been quoted above. However, this Court has framed one of the substantial questions of law as number
(iii) i.e. whether the suit was barred by the provisions of Section 31 and 34 of Specific Relief Act, and during the course of hearing as mentioned above, the learned counsel for the appellants have themselves submitted that the point in connection with Section 31 of Specific Relief Act does not arise in this case. However, the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the defendant no. 3 was claiming 2 acres and defendant no. 5 to 7 were claiming 1 acre each by virtue of settlements made in their favour by the State and they were also in possession of the suit property. Therefore, in absence of any challenge to the settlement made in their favour, no relief could be granted to the plaintiffs.
61. Section 31 and 34 of Specific Relief Act are quoted as under:
"31. When cancellation may be ordered. -- (1) Any person against whom a written instrument is void or voidable, and who has reasonable apprehension that such instrument, if left outstanding may cause him serious injury, may sue to have it adjudged void or voidable; and the court may, in its discretion, so adjudge it and order it to be delivered up and cancelled. (2) If the instrument has been registered under the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), the court shall also send a copy of its decree to the officer in whose office the instrument has been so registered; and such officer shall note on the copy of the instrument contained in his books the fact of its cancellation.
34. Discretion of court as to declaration of status or right.--Any person entitled to any legal character, or to any right as to any property, may institute a suit against any person denying, or interested to deny, his title to such character or right, and the court may in its discretion make therein a declaration that he is so entitled, and the plaintiff need not in such suit ask for any further relief:35
2025:JHHC:16267 Provided that no court shall make any such declaration where the plaintiff, being able to seek further relief than a mere declaration of title, omits to do so.
Explanation.--A trustee of property is a "person interested to deny" a title adverse to the title of some one who is not inexistence, and for whom, if in existence, he would be a trustee."
62. This Court finds that the plaintiffs sought a declaration of their right, title, and interest over the suit property, along with a relief for confirmation of possession, and in case of dispossession, recovery of possession. However, despite having full knowledge that the suit property was settled in favour of defendants no. 3 to 7 or their predecessors-in-interest under Settlement Case No. 27 of 1960-61 and Settlement Case No. 27 of 1986-87, the plaintiffs chose not to challenge the orders of such settlements. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that, in the absence of any challenge to the settlements in favour of defendants no. 3 to 7 or their predecessors-in- interest, who were also found to be in possession of the concerned property covered by the settlements, the suit seeking declaration of title is barred under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. So far as Section 31 of Specific Relief Act is concerned, the same is not attracted as because no relief seeking cancellation of any instrument including the settlements in favour of defendant no. 3 to 7 or their predecessor in interest was sought for in the suit. This Court is of the considered view that the learned trial court while deciding issue no. V has rightly held that the suit was barred by the provisions of Specific Relief Act. The 3rd substantial question of law is accordingly answered in favour of the respondents and against the appellants. 1st Substantial question of law.
63. This Court finds that although the substantial question of law has referred Exhibit-10 as order passed in Compensation Case No. 14 of 1953-54 but upon perusal of the same and upon considering the materials on record, this Court finds that the same is certified copy of 36 2025:JHHC:16267 the return which was filed in the Compensation Case No. 14 of 1953- 54 and is not the order passed in the compensation case. Rather, the order of the Compensation Case No.14 of 1953-54 has not been brought on record by the plaintiffs so as to enable this Court to find out that in what manner the order was passed in the compensation case pursuant to the return (Exhibit 10). This Court also finds that Exhibit- 10 was exhibited by P.W.-7 who deposed that at serial No. 27 the name of Badamia Pasin is mentioned which related to Khata No. 18 and 21 and that there are cuttings in the returns. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants that there is no cutting in connection with serial No. 27 of the return relating to Badamia Pasin and upon perusal of Exhibit-10 this submission appears to be correct.
64. However, at the same time it is important to note that the learned 1st appellate court found that the cuttings and over-writing on the return (Exhibit-10) was not even initialed by the ex-landlord; the learned 1st appellate court further rejected Exhibit 10 in view of the fact that P.W. 7 had deposed that the return was scribed by Surya Narayan Prasad but the return did not contain his signature; the learned 1st appellate court has considered that the evidence of P.W.-7 who had practically demolished the case of the plaintiffs in as much as P.W.-7 stated that Sada-Hukumnana (Exhibit-11) was settlement done in Samvat year 1946 and had also deposed that in Samvat year 1946 Mahant was somebody else namely Anand Prakash Das. The learned 1st appellate court accordingly held that P.W.-7 was not born in Samvat Year 1946 when Sada-hukumnama (Exhibit 11) was executed and held that P.W-7 does not have the correct knowledge in connection with Sada-Humumnama (Exhibit-11). This Court is of the considered view that Exhibit - 10 cannot be considered in isolation and it has to be considered with the other evidences placed on record including the evidence of P.W.7 who had exhibited the return Exhibit- 10 filed in Compensation Case No. 14 of 1953-54.
65. This Court is of the considered view that the learned courts have considered the evidences in totality particularly the evidence with regard to Sada-Hukumnama (Exhibit-11) while dismissing the 37 2025:JHHC:16267 suit and also the appeal. The learned courts have also considered various rent receipts while recording the findings against the plaintiffs the details of which have been mentioned above.
66. This Court also finds that the learned courts has also rejected the Sada-Hukumnana (Exhibit-11) by referring to the fact that it mentioned that it was issued in samvat year 1946 which was equivalent to English calendar year 1889 and in the English calendar year 1889 the Mahant was Anand Prakash Das and as per the plaintiffs, the settlement of Sada-Hukumnana (Exhibit-11) was issued by Brahm Prakash Das in favour of Badamia Pasin in the English calendar year 1946. Before the learned 1st appellate court, it was argued that in the Sada-Hukumnana (Exhibit-11) the samvat year 1946 was wrongly mentioned and it was an error of pen and it ought to have been English calendar year 1946, but there was neither any foundational pleading nor any evidence with respect to such error in connection with error in writing the date in the Sada-Hukumnana (Exhibit-11).
67. The learned trial court has considered that the rent receipt contained in Exhibit - 1 series and 2 series which included Zamindari rent receipt in the name of Badamia Pasin but recorded that no khata number was mentioned in revenue receipts. The learned trial court has recorded that on perusal of Exhibit - 10, it appeared that ex-landlord had filed return of Khata No. 21 plot No. 106 and Khata No. 18 in the name of Badamia Pasin but recorded that before issuing revenue receipts, it was necessary that the demand be opened but in this regard no document was produced.
68. This Court is of the considered view that the learned trial court as well as learned 1st appellate court has considered the contents of Exhibit-10 and the learned 1st appellate court has also considered the fact that the person P.W.-7 who had exhibited Exhibit-10 [which is a certified copy of the return which was filed in the Compensation Case No. 14 of 1953-54] had no complete knowledge and disbelieved the evidence of P.W.-7 by citing reasons. This Court is of the considered view that once the Sada-Hukumnana (Exhibit-11) was rejected to be 38 2025:JHHC:16267 not a genuine document by both the learned courts, merely the return Exhibit-10 [which is a certified copy of the return which was filed in the Compensation Case No. 14 of 1953-54] filed by ex-zamindar has no bearing in the matter as the very basis of the claim i.e. Sada- hukumnama (Exhibit-11) was found to be not genuine.
69. This Court finds that merely because the name of aunt of plaintiff No. 1, namely, Badamia Pasin, was mentioned in Exhibit 10, the same by itself will not confer title upon the plaintiffs particularly when the basis of claim of Badamia Pasin i.e. Sada-hukumnama (Exhibit-11) was found to be not genuine by both the Courts. Accordingly, the 1st substantial question of law is answered against the appellants and in favour of the respondents.
2nd Substantial question of law.
70. So far as the 2nd substantial question of law is concerned, this Court finds that in the judgment passed in the case of Mt. Ugni (supra), it has been held that though Sada-hukumnama by itself is not admissible in evidence being an unregistered document but if it is followed by issuance of rent receipt, the same by itself is evidence of the nature of possession. The findings of the court in the case of Mt. Ugni (supra) at paragraph 17 is quoted as under: -
"17. The unregistered hukumnama, though inadmissible, could be looked into to show the nature and character of possession. Oral evidence of the terms of the lease will not be admissible; but, independent of the hukumnama, the rent receipts themselves indicate the rate of rent, the area and the nature of the right of the lessee. Hence, independent of the hukumnama, the terms of the raiyati settlement were inferable from other pieces of evidence, which were rightly relied on by the lower appellate court. There is no error of law that would justify our interference in second appeal."
71. This Court finds that not only the Sada-hukumnama (Exhibit-
11) has been disbelieved by both the courts but even the zamindari receipts have been disbelieved by the learned 1 st appellate court vide paragraph 23 which is quoted as under: -
"23. The pleading of the plaintiffs is that the issuance of Ext. 11 was followed by issuance of Zamindari rent receipt. To support this fact Ext.2 and 2/a have been filed. From Ext. 2/a it appears 39 2025:JHHC:16267 that it is the first zamindari rent receipt. According to it, under signature of the same landlord, this rent receipt is issued for the rent of the year 2007 issued on 13.04.1951. If the year 2007 is taken to be sambat year, it must be 1950 of the English calendar year but it is 1951. If these two dates are taken into consideration, certainly neither of the two years are equal to English Calendar year or sambat year 1946. Second zamindari rent receipt Ext. 2 shows the payment of rent for two consecutive year 2009 and 2010 of Rs.11 each. In payment column, against the demand of Rs.22, Rs.16 has been shown to be paid and the date of payment is shown to be paid on 08.03.54. It also does not support the mistake of pen that in place of English Calendar year, Sambat year 1946 has been mentioned on Ext. 11. On the above discussed facts, the argument of the learned counsel regarding mistake of pen in writing sambat year in place of English calendar year is not acceptable and thus not accepted."
72. In the aforesaid circumstances where the Sada-hukumnama (Exhibit-11) has been disbelieved by both the courts and the zamindari rent receipts have also been discarded by citing reasons on account of mismatch, the judgment passed in the case of Mt. Ugni (supra) does not help the appellants in any manner whatsoever in getting their right, title and interest declared over the suit property and does not support of the submission that the property involved in this case did not vest in the State of Jharkhand upon coming into force of Bihar Land Reforms Act and that it was the raiyati land of Badamia Pasin which devolved upon the plaintiffs. The fact remains that both the learned courts did not even find that the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit property. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid findings, the 2nd substantial question of law is also answered against the appellants and in favour of the respondents.
73. In view of the facts that all the substantial questions of law have been answered against the appellants, this second appeal is hereby dismissed.
74. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not pressed.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Saurav/ 40