Jharkhand High Court
Akshay Kumar Jaiswal vs Rukmani Devi on 28 January, 2026
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
2026:JHHC:2180
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S. A. No. 212 of 2022
Akshay Kumar Jaiswal, aged about 47 years, son of Ugra Narayan
Jaiswal, resident of Godda Town, P.O. Godda, P.S. Sub-Division,
District-Godda.
... ... Plaintiff/Appellant/Appellant
Versus
1. Rukmani Devi, Wife of Chandra Shekhar Ramdas.
2. Rakesh Ramdas, Son of Late Chandra Shekhar Ramdas.
3. Shewata Ramdas, Daughter of Chandra Shekhar Das.
4. Putul Ramdas, Daughter of Chandra Shekhar Das.
5. Shankar
6. Rajeev Ramdas
7. Sanjeev Ramdas all sons of Late Devendra Ramdas
8. Sanjukta Devi, Daughter of Late Devendra Ramdas, Residents of
Village Korka, P.O. and P.S. Pathargama, District-Godda.
... ... Defendants 1st party/Respondent 1st party/Respondent
1st party
9. Shatrughan Mishra, Son of Late Radhika Mishra
10.Nutan Dubey, Wife of Prem Kumar Dubey, Resident of Babupara,
P.O. and P.S. Godda (T), District-Godda.
11.Bharatji Mishra, Son of Late Radhika Mishra
12.Smt. Jaymala Devi, Daughter of Late Radhika Mishra.
13.Dinkar Mishra
14.Madhukar Mishra
15.Bablu Mishra, Sons of Ramji Mishra
16.Papu Mishra
17.Bijay Shankar Mishra, Sons of Bharatji Mishra
18.Roshan Kumar Mishra
19.Babul Mishra both sons of Satrughan Mishra, all residents of
Godda Town, P.O.-Godda, P.S. Sub-Division and District-Godda.
... ... Defendant 2nd party/Respondent 2nd
party/Respondent 2nd party
20.Sabitri Devi, Wife of Late Ugra Narayan Jaiswal
21.Bipin Kumar Jaiswal, Son of Ugra Narayan Jaiswal
22.Upendra Narayan Jaiswal
23.Birendra Narayan Jaiswal
All sons of Late Babu Chakndrika Prasad Jaiswal
24.Rajpati Devi, Daughter of Late Babu Chandrika Prasad Jaiswal,
Resident of Godda Town, P.O. Godda, P.S. Sub Division and
District-Godda.
... ... Plaintiffs/Appellants/Proforma Respondents
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Appellant : Mr. Sandeep Verma, Advocate
---
12026:JHHC:2180 Lastly, heard on 20.01.2026 Pronounced on 28.01.2026
1. This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the judgment dated 30.09.2022 (decree signed on 25.11.2022) passed by learned District Judge-1st, Godda in Civil Appeal No. 07 of 2009. The learned 1st appellate court has partly dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiffs. The trial court judgment is dated 09.04.2009 (decree signed on 27.07.2009) passed by learned Sub-Judge 1st, Godda in Title Suit No. 27 of 1985 and the suit was dismissed.
2. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs against two sets of defendants, defendant 1st party and defendant 2nd party.
3. The plaintiffs sought a declaration of their title with respect to Schedule 'A' land alleging that the same was in illegal possession of defendant 1st party and also with respect to schedule 'B' land alleging that the same was in illegal possession of defendant No. 2 to 4 amongst the defendant 2nd party. The plaintiffs also sought a decree for recovery of possession of the suit land from the defendants.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the suit property consisted of schedule 'A' and schedule 'B' and the suit was dismissed. At the 1st appellate stage, the appeal was allowed only in connection with schedule 'A' property and so far as schedule 'B' property is concerned, the 1st appeal was also dismissed and accordingly, the plaintiff/appellant is aggrieved with respect to finding of the learned 1st appellate court in connection with schedule 'B' property only.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the finding of the learned court that Radhika Mishra, father of the defendant No. 2 to 4, was in possession with respect to schedule 'B' property since 1936-37 was based on three facts (A) Oral Settlement, (B) Kurfanama (Which was never exhibited) and (C) Compromise decree passed in Title Suit No. 08 of 1962. He has also submitted that the compromise decree was exhibited by the plaintiffs as Exhibit-8.
6. Learned counsel has submitted that Kurfanama was never produced before the court and accordingly, the very basis on which defendant No. 2 to 4 claimed possession was not exhibited. He has 2 2026:JHHC:2180 submitted that the finding of the court that the aforesaid defendants were in possession of the suit property 12 years prior to coming into force of S.P.T. Act is not in accordance with law.
7. Learned counsel has submitted that the finding in connection with possession since 1936 is perverse.
8. He has relied upon judgment passed by Hon'ble Patna High Court reported in 1975 PLJR 446 [Ram Narain Sah vs. The State of Bihar & Others] has referred paragraph 8 and the said judgement also refers to the judgment passed by Hon'ble Patna High Court (full bench) reported in 1972 PLJR 415 Pat [Bhauri Lal Jain vs. Sub- Divisional Officer, Jamtara].
9. Case of the plaintiffs:-
a. The plaintiffs claimed to be the legal heirs and successors of Karulal Choudhary, the recorded tenant, with respect to J.B. No. 11, which stood exclusively recorded in his name. The suit property has been described in Schedule 'A' and 'B' property. b. It was the case of the plaintiffs that Karulal Choudhary died in the year 1933-34, after the survey settlement, leaving behind his son Babulal, who also died leaving his daughter Madan Devi and wife Manti Devi. Madan Devi was married to one Chandrika Pd. Jaiswal and the plaintiffs are their sons. Both Chandrika Pd. and Madan Devi had died. Further, Madan Devi had expired in the year 1972 and her mother expired in the year 1974.
c. In the month of May 1974, the plaintiffs wanted to plough the suit land, but the defendants requested the plaintiffs to continue their permissive possession as they were coming in possession since the life time of Manti Devi, but the defendants on 15.05.1974 refused to give up their possession by saying that they were in possession of the suit land on the basis of purchase from Manti Devi.
d. It was alleged that the claim of the defendants was based on forged and fabricated documents and the predecessors in interest of the plaintiffs had never transferred the suit lands to 3 2026:JHHC:2180 the defendants nor executed any documents in their favour. It was also asserted that Manti Devi was a pardanashin lady and also that the suit lands are not transferable lands as per the provisions of Santhal Paragana Tenancy Act (S.P.T. Act) and even on the basis of collusive title suits, if any, the defendants have no right to continue in possession of the suit land. It was asserted that the collusive title through judgment or decree in title suit is not binding on the plaintiffs being in violation of sprit of S.P.T Act.
10. Since, the relief has been ultimately granted to the appellant in connection with schedule-A property, no discussion is required so far as schedule-A property is concerned.
11. Case of the Defendant 2nd party in connection with schedule B property:-
i. The defendants appeared and filed their written statement. It was asserted that there was misjoinder of cause of action as against defendant No.1 on one hand and defendant No. 2 to 4 on other hand. There was nothing common amongst the sets of defendants.
ii. The property in connection with schedule-B is related to defendant 2nd party.
iii. It was the specific case of the defendant 2nd party that Radhika Pd. Mishra, the father of defendants, was an old resident of Godda town and had opened book stall sometimes in the year 1935 and he had opened book-stall in a rented house in Godda bazar, but had no land of his own. At that time, the sons and widow (Manti Devi) of Babulal Choudhary had extensive land in their possession which they could not cultivate. So Manti Devi thought it prudent to settle portion of plot No. 12 and invited settles and the father of defendant 2nd party needed some land for residential accommodation, approached Manti Devi in 1936 and she settled 8 kathas of land in plot No.12 with Radhika Prasad Mishra (orally), father of the defendants, who came in possession and constructed a wall with wood and plank 4 2026:JHHC:2180 door and the defendants built a house inside the compound wall and a portion of the schedule land was also used as kitchen garden and cow shed was also established in the property. The defendants 2nd party asserted that they were still living in the house of schedule-B property since 1937.
iv. It was denied that the plaintiffs wanted to plough the suit lands in May 1974 and it was asserted that there were no fields to plough. It was also asserted that Manti Devi never objected to any construction over the suit property. It was also asserted that in the year 1962 Manti Devi, at the instance of her daughter Madan Devi, filed a Title Suit No. 8 of 1963 in the Court of Deputy Collector Godda for recovery of possession over the suit land described in Schedule-B property against the father of the defendant 2nd party, but good sense prevailed on her and she compromised with defendant 2nd party and the compromise was recorded on 07.02.1963 and Manti Devi gave up her claim over the suit property. The defendant 2nd party got their name mutated in Mutation Case No.154 of 1972-73. It was asserted that the father of the defendant 2nd party during his lifetime acquired title to the suit land by adverse possession before 1949 and continued in possession till 1967 when he died and after his death the defendant 2nd party have inherited the property. v. It was also asserted that the defendant 2nd party were granted Kurfanama, but the same was not required after the decision in title suit. It was also asserted that Manti Devi was a literate lady and was not a pardanashin lady. The defendant 2nd party claimed to have acquired title over the land of schedule-B by adverse possession and it was asserted that it was false to say that the decree in Title Suit No.8 of 1963 was collusive in any manner and the compromise entered into between Manti Devi and the father of the defendant 2nd party is binding on the plaintiffs.
vi. It was also asserted that the compromise was never objected by Manti Devi till her death in the year 1974. It was also asserted 5 2026:JHHC:2180 that the plaintiffs had falsely filed suit for declaration of their title, although the plaintiffs earlier filed R.E.R. No.4 of 1982-83 against the defendant 2nd party for eviction from Schedule-B land and other occupants of plot No.12 being settlees of Manti Devi and in that case the plaintiffs claimed that defendant 2 nd party had come in possession over the schedule-B land after 1949 and in the said case there was averment that defendant 2 nd party were requested in 1974 to allow them to cultivate the land of schedule-B property. It was submitted that the title suit was not maintainable. It was also asserted that the power of eviction rests only with the revenue court and suit was barred under Section 9 of C.P.C.
12. The following issues were framed by the learned trial court:-
1. Is the suit as framed maintainable?
2. Have the plaintiffs any valid cause of action for the suit?
3. Is the suit barred by law of limitation, estoppel, acquiescence and waiver and on the principle of adverse possession?
4. Does the suit suffers defect of parties and cause of action?
5. Have the plaintiffs got any valid title over the suit land and if so the what extent?
6. Whether the plaintiffs are heir of recorded tenant?
7. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree, if so to what extent?
8. To what other or relief or reliefs, if any, are the plaintiffs entitled?
9. Whether the suit is bad for non joinder and misjoinder of parties (cause of action)?
10. Whether the court has jurisdiction to entertain this suit in view of pendency of R.E.R Case no. 40 of 83-84 in the court of S.D.O.?
13. It was asserted in the written statement filed by the defendant 1st party and has also come in the evidence of the defendants including the evidence of the defendant 2nd party , D.W-1 (Satrughan Mishra) that Madan Devi died issueless and the plaintiffs are sons from second wife and Madan Devi died first.
14. The learned trial court recorded that by virtue of order dated 29.12.1972 passed by learned Circle Officer, Godda in Mutation Case 6 2026:JHHC:2180 No. 154 of 1972-73, the property was mutated in the name of Ramjee Mishra and rent receipts were issued with respect to Schedule-B property. The learned trial court also considered the plaint of Title Suit No. 8 of 1963 (Exhibit-G) which was filed by Manti Devi (mother of Madan Devi) on 19.11.1962 against Radhika Pd. Mishra and his sons with respect to schedule-B property wherein she sought recovery of possession and vide order dated 07.02.1963, the suit was dismissed on the basis of compromise (Exhibit-H). It was the case of the plaintiffs that they are the heirs of recorded tenant (Karulal Choudhary). Madan Devi daughter of Babulal Choudhary died in 1972 and Manti Devi wife of Babulal Choudhary died on 26.01.1974.
15. It was the case of the defendants that Madan Devi had no issue, so her husband Chandrika Pd. Jaiswal took the second wife and all the plaintiffs were the sons of Chandrika Pd. Jaiswal, but not the son of Madan Devi and therefore, it was for the plaintiffs to prove that they were the heirs of Madan Devi and admittedly, Madan Devi predeceased her mother and Madan Devi could not have inherited the property and thereby the plaintiffs failed to establish that they were the legal heirs of recorded tenant.
16. It was also found that no appeal was filed by Manti Devi against the compromise decree passed in Title Suit No.8 of 1963. Consequently, it was observed by the learned trial court that it was evident that Manti Devi had settled the property by Kurfa with defendant 1st party and 2nd party and they were also put in possession of the same and had constructed houses etc over the suit property. The court also recorded that Manti Devi, who filed a suit being Title Suit No. 08 of 1963 which was dismissed on the basis of compromise. The learned trial court also recorded that the defendants had come in possession of the land in the year 1936 in his own right and capacity of bonafide settlee and the plaintiffs admitted the possession of Radhika Pd. Mishra (father of the defendant no. 2 to 4 who were amongst the defendant 2nd party) and Devendra Ramdas (defendant 1st party) in the year 1934-35. The learned trial court recorded that both the schedule A and schedule B property were under different 7 2026:JHHC:2180 circumstances and different dates with respect to different portion of plot No.12 and there was nothing in common. The learned trial court held that the suit suffered from the defect of misjoinder of cause of action.
17. While deciding issue No.10, the learned trial court recorded that the learned S.D.O had the jurisdiction of ejectment under Section 42 of S.P.T. Act and the plaintiffs would not invoke the civil jurisdiction for the same subject matter. The plaintiffs had invoked first revenue courts of S.D.O. Godda and later on invoked the jurisdiction of Civil Court. The learned trial court held that the suit of civil court was barred under S.P.T. Act and Section 9 of the CPC and therefore, the suit was not maintainable.
18. While deciding issue Nos.2 and 3, the learned trial court recorded that the plaintiffs had no cause of action and the defendants had completed 12 years of adverse possession prior to passing of the S.P.T. Act of 1949 and continued in possession thereafter and the learned trial court ultimately dismissed the suit. This finding has not been disturbed by the learned 1st appellate court with respect to schedule-B property.
19. The learned 1st appellate court from paragraph 16 considered the issue Nos.(i), (ii), (iii) & (iv) together. The learned 1st appellate court recorded a finding on the basis of oral and documentary evidence which is as follows:-
"18.............................................................................................. ...................... So it is clear that Radhika Mishra got lands in 1936 from Manti Devi and they construct the house boundary wall and living with family in the Schedule B land, who after compromise the case in Title suit no. 8/62 filed by Manti Devi compromise the case on the basis of compromise petition, the case is disposed off and Radhika Mishara filed a Mutation case no. 1972-73 and mutated his name and paid rent to the government, so court found that on the basis of oral evidence, these issues decided partly in favour of respondent no.2 and against the plaintiff, whereas partly in favour of plaintiff and against the respondent no.1st set."
20. With respect to defendant 1st party/respondent 1st party, the learned 1st appellate court held that the defendant 1 st set did not 8 2026:JHHC:2180 produce any compromise petition, Kurfanama or any documentary evidence in support of their case although they claimed on the basis of such documents and allowed the claim of the plaintiffs with respect to schedule A property.
21. With respect to defendant 2nd party relating to schedule B property, the learned 1st appellate court recorded the following findings:
-
"20. ....................................................
Whereas respondent 2nd party claim possession before 12 years of S.P.T. Act 1945 and claimed on the basis of Kurfanama but no Kurfanama produced before the court during the trial and never brought on the record, whereas respondent 2nd party also taken the same ground and on the basis of compromise , they got a decree is in his favour and apply a mutation case and got successful his name mutated in the record and they paid rent to the government. Devendra Ramdas also examined in the court. They recorded his age at 80 years according to their age counting, they are 7-8 years at the time of purchase the schedule A land, so it is not possible that they working as a Homeopathic doctor and purchase the land, so in this way the claim of respondent 1st party is totally baseless that they purchase the suit land where as Radhika Mishra established a Radhika Press and bookstall, who taken the land in 1936-37 from Manti Devi for residential purpose and from the commissioner report, it is clear that they are legal heirs are presenting living after constructing the house, so the provision of S.P.T. Act is not operative against the Respondent 2nd party and 2nd party on the basis of mutation in 1972-73 in the life time of Manti Devi mutated his name in the record and pay revenue to the government, hence the plaintiff have no any right title and possession on the schedule land of B in the light of documentary and oral evidence as on record......"
22. The learned 1st appellate court on the basis of materials on record, both oral and documentary, held that plaintiffs have right, title and possession over schedule A property and allowed the appeal partly with respect to schedule A property and further held that plaintiff have no any right, title and possession over the schedule B property and also held that the defendant 2nd party has right, title and possession of schedule B property as father of the defendant 2nd party had taken the land in 1936- 9 2026:JHHC:2180 37 from Manti Devi and the defendant 2nd party have been living on the same after constructing the house.
23. Therefore, concurrent findings have been recorded by both the courts that the defendant 2nd party was in possession with respect to the suit property 12 years prior to coming into force of S.P.T. Act and had perfected their title by virtue of adverse possession and later on Manti Devi filed a Title Suit No.8 of 1963 against the father of defendant No. 2 to 4 (defendant 2nd party) which ended in a compromise. The court also recorded that Manti Devi, during her lifetime, neither challenged the compromise nor challenged the mutation carried on in favour of the defendant 2nd party.
24. In the judgment reported in 1972 PLJR 415 (Supra) it has been clearly held that a person could perfect the title by adverse possession after completion of 12 years in possession prior coming into force of the S.P.T. Act 1949.
25. In the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the appellant reported in 1975 SCC Online Pat 14 (supra), it was the case of the appellant that they came in possession in the year 1944 and admittedly they had not completed the possession 12 years prior to coming into force of the S.P.T Act, 1949. This judgement is clearly distinguishable on facts.
26. This Court finds that the learned 1st appellate court has rightly scrutinized the materials on record and has rejected the case of the plaintiffs as against defendant 2nd set so far as the schedule B property is concerned. This appeal is related only with schedule-B property as the learned 1st appellate court has already granted relief to the plaintiffs with respect to schedule-A property as against defendant 1st set.
27. This Court finds that no question of law, much less substantial question of law involved in this 2nd appeal.
28. Accordingly, this 2nd appeal is dismissed.
29. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not pressed.
102026:JHHC:2180
30. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the concerned courts through "Fax/E-mail".
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 28.01.2026 Rakesh/-
Uploaded on:- 28th January, 2026 11