The appellant appealed the dismissal of a title suit seeking declaration of rights over agricultural land. The High Court affirmed the lower court's finding that the sellers were Scheduled Tribes (Santhals), making the sale deeds void and illegal under relevant statutory restrictions on tribal land transfer.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
F.A. No. 120 of 2008
Gouri Shankar Mishra, son of Sri Kailash Mishra, resident of G– 12, Sheo Ganga Apartment, P.O. & P.S. Sonari, Town Jamshedpur, District Singhbhum East.
… … Plaintiff/Appellant
Versus The State of Jharkhand represented through Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur. … … Respondent/Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
--For the Appellant : Mr. Manjul Prasad, Sr.Advocate : Mr. Baban Prasad, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Jagdeesh, A.C. to S.C. (L&C)
09/16.01.2019 Heard Mr. Manjul Prasad, Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant assisted by Mr. Baban Prasad, Advocate. 2. Heard Mr. Jagdeesh, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.
3. This first appeal has been filed by the plaintiff/appellant against the judgment dated 26.03.2008 and decree signed on 04.04.2008 passed by learned Sub-Judge – I, Jamshedpur in Title Suit No.96 of 2006, whereby, Title Suit has been dismissed.
4. Title Suit No.96 of 2006 was filed by the plaintiff/appellant for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit land and for confirmation of possession and also seeking permanent injunction with respect to the schedule property comprising of survey Khata No. 908, Plot No. 97 measuring an area of 0.31.60 Hectare situated in Mauza Pardih Ward No. 9 J.N.A.C. (Mango) P.S. Mango, District Singhbhum East.
5. The case of the plaintiff in the plaint is as follows:-
2
(b)Revisional Survey, finalized in the year 1964 and
(c) Municipal Survey, finalized in the year 1979.
3
Jagannath Mahato by registered sale deed dated 27.01.1973.
4
6. As per the written statement which was filed before the learned Court below, it appears as follows:-
5
Act, 1950, barred by Specific Relief Act, 1963 waiver, estoppel and acquiescence.
6
the year 1979 in the name of State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) and continues to stand in the name of State Government. The defendant also denied the statement made by the plaintiff that Mohan Majhi and Bharat Majhi were “Deshwali Majhis” and also denied the statement of the plaintiff that that Mohan Majhi and Bharat Majhi were members of Schedule Tribe. The cause of action for filing the suit was also disputed.
7. The following issues were framed by the lower court below in the Title Suit:
7
8. Oral as well as the documentary evidence were adduced
on behalf of the plaintiff, whose details are as follows:
8
XVII. Mutation correction of Mutation case slip no.897/01-02- Ext.9/a
9
VIII. Gouri Shankar Mishra – P.W. 8- Plaintiff who has fully supported his case.
9. So far as defendant is concerned, neither any oral nor any documentary evidences were adduced on their behalf.
10. The learned trial court while deciding issue no.-IV has held that Mohan Manjhi and Bharat Manjhi sons of Rohit Manjhi were schedule tribe, Santhal and not Deswali Manjhi.
11. While deciding issue no. V held that the mutation slips contained in Exhibit - 8/c and 9 series were not related to suit land and also held that the sale deeds relied upon by the plaintiff were in contravention of Section 46 of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 and hence were illegal, null and void and accordingly, the plaintiff did not acquire any right, title and interest over the suit land and claim of possession based on such documents cannot be recognized by court.
12. While deciding issue no. III, the learned court below decided this issue in favour of the plaintiff and held that the suit was not barred by limitation, estoppels, waiver, acquiescence and under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
13. While deciding issue nos. I and II, the learned court below has held that having found that Mohan Manjhi and Bharat Manjhi were tribal santhal and any right, title and interest arising out of the deeds involved in this cases cannot be recognized, the learned court held that the plaintiff had no cause of action to file the suit and accordingly the suit as framed was not maintainable.
14. While deciding issue nos. VI, VII and VIII, the learned court below held that since plaintiff had failed to prove his right, title, interest and possession over the suit land, the learned court below declined to exercise its discretion under Section 34 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 for granting declaratory
10
decree in connection with right, title and possession of the property involved in this case.
15. Counsel for the appellant while assailing the impugned judgment submits as under :-
11
from non-application of judicial mind and are accordingly perverse.
16. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, submits as under:
12
court to ignore any admission made by members of Schedule Tribe. Accordingly, the statement made by Bharat Majhi that he was a ‘Hindu’ was rightly rejected by the learned lower court below.
vi. He further submits that as per Section 84 of Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 every entry in the record of right, which has been published, is an evidence of the matter referred to in such entry and is assumed to be correct until it is proved by evidence to be incorrect.
vii. He submits that it was for the plaintiff to adduce cogent evidence, which was admissible in law to dispute the status of Bharat Majhi and Mohan Majhi, as their caste was duly recorded in the record of right as Santhal, which is admittedly a Schedule Tribe.
17. After hearing the counsel for the parties and after considering the materials on record, this Court finds that the point for determination in this appeal would be:
13
nos. 4280, 4281 and 4282 dated 06.08.2003? (issue no. 5 before the learned trial court)
18. So far as the point regarding the status of Mohan Majhi and Bharat Majhi is concerned, this Court finds that Exhibit8/A is the certified copy of the record of right published in the year 1964 and as per this Exhibit, the status of Bharat Majhi and Mohan Majhi has been recorded as belonging to Santhals.
19. Further in Exhibit-4/b, which is, deed of disclaim dated 27.01.1973 and was exhibited by the plaintiff, the caste of Mohan Majhi has been described as Santhal. 20. This Court finds that there is a specific entry in the finally published record of right that Mohan Majhi and Bharat Majhi were Santhal by caste. As per the provisions of Section 84 of Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908, there is a presumption as to final publication of correctness of the record of right, and it has been provided that every entry of the record of right so published, shall be evidence of the matter referred to in such entry and shall be presumed to be correct until it is proved by evidence as incorrect.
21. Further, as per the provisions of Section 3 of Bihar Schedule Area Regulation, 1969, the Court have been empowered to ignore admission by member of Scheduled Tribes, which provides that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Court shall, in any suit or proceeding relating to transfer of land of a member of the Scheduled Tribes, require any fact expressly or impliedly admitted by such person to be proved otherwise than by mere admission and the Deputy Commissioner may also produce evidence in rebuttal.
22. This Court finds that the appellant has heavily relied upon the oral testimony of Bharat Majhi, who deposed before the Court below as P.W. 3 and had stated that he was ‘Hindu’ because he worshiped ‘Hindu God’. This statement could not
14
be relied upon by the court below to disbelieve the entry made regarding his caste status in the record of right for two reasons.
Firstly, his own brother, namely Mohan Manjhi, in the Disclaim deed (Exhibit-4/b) of the year 1973 which is in favour of Duryodhan Mahato, has stated that he was “Santhal” by caste and this document is the basis for the two sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff by Duryodhan Mahato on the basis of which, the plaintiff is claiming half portion of the suit property as per the plaint, whose details have been mentioned above, referring to the case of the plaintiff. Thus, mere statement of Bharat Manjhi claiming himself to be Hindu, who had executed three deeds in favour of the plaintiff for remaining portion of the property involved in the suit, by declaring himself as a Hindu, was not enough to dislodge the aforesaid statutory presumption regarding correctness of the matters stated in the record of rights finally published under the aforesaid provisions of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908. Admittedly in the record of rights, the status of Mohan Manjhi and Bharat Manjhi was shown as Santhals.
Secondly, in view of Section 3 of Bihar Schedule Area Regulation, 1969, the Courts have been empowered to ignore admission by member of Scheduled Tribes, and accordingly in the facts and circumstances of this case, the so called admission made by Bharat Manjhi, by way of oral evidence, regarding his caste status, is not fit to be relied upon and has rightly been ignored by the learned trial court.
23. From perusal of the impugned judgment which has been passed by the learned court below, this Court finds that the learned court below by referring to the aforesaid provisions of Section 84 of Chota Nagpur Tenancy, Act 1908 as well as Section 3 of Bihar Schedule Area Regulation, 1969 has refused to rely upon the said testimony of P.W. 3.
15
24. This Court further finds that said Bharat Majhi and Mohan Majhi were never made party before the learned court below and this issue could not have been decided in their absence by merely referring to the statement of Bharat Majhi, who simply deposed as witness on behalf of plaintiff. It is relevant to note that Mohan Manjhi did not even depose as witness before the learned trial court. In such circumstances, the entry made in the record of right mentioning the status of Bharat Majhi and Mohan Majhi as Santhal, has been rightly believed to be correct by the learned court below and accordingly, this Court finds that the issue no. 4 regarding the caste status of Bharat Majhi and Mohan Majhi was rightly decided against of the plaintiff.
25. So far as other issue regarding reliance of the plaintiff on various sale deeds are concerned, this Court finds that as Mohan Majhi and Bharat Majhi were belonging to the Santhal, which is admittedly a schedule tribe, therefore, the provisions of Section 46 of Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 comes into play and as there is a specific bar in connection with transfer of tribal properties which also specifically provides that no transfer in contravention of sub-Section 1 of Section 46 shall be registered or shall be in any way recognized as valid by any court whatsoever in exercise of civil, criminal or revenue jurisdiction. In such circumstances, even if the claim of the plaintiff is based on registered sale deeds, the same cannot be acknowledged and recognized by any court and has rightly not been acknowledged and recognized by the learned court below for the purpose of deciding right, title, interest or possession in connection with the property involved in this case in favour of the plaintiff. This Court finds that this issue has also been rightly decided by the learned trial court and accordingly does not call for any interference.
16
26. So far as other issues are concerned, no arguments have been advanced by the counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and most of them ultimately revolve around the answer to issue numbers 4 and 5 as framed and decided by the learned court below and affirmed by this Court as above. The manner in which the other issues have been decided by the learned trial court has already been mentioned at Para 10 above, which, in the considered view of this court, do not call for any interference.
27. Accordingly, the instant appeal is, hereby, dismissed.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Saurav/
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the recorded raiyats Mohan Majhi and Bharat Majhi belonged to the Scheduled Tribe 'Santhal'.
Whether the plaintiff acquired right, title, and interest over the suit property via sale deeds executed by tribal members.
Whether the sale deeds transferring tribal land are valid and recognizable under Section 46 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Gouri Shankar Mishra
State of Jharkhand
Anubha Rawat Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
