Dismissed

Bhola Mahato v. Madan Mahato

Jharkhand HC3 Sept 2024SA/294/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Plaintiffs sought declaration and confirmation of possession over suit land, contesting a 1988 sale-deed executed by heirs of Sripati Chakravorty. Both courts below found plaintiffs held title only to 62 of 93 decimals. The High Court found concurrent findings not perverse, no substantial question of law arose, and dismissed the second appeal without costs.

What did the court decide?

None granted; second appeal dismissed without costs.

Bhola Mahato Vs Madan Mahato — Property and Title | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI S.A. No.294 of 2019

¶2

------

¶3

(Against the judgment dated 11.07.2019 passed by learned District Judge-IV, Dhanbad in Civil Appeal No.88 of 2017)

¶4

Bhola Mahato aged about 65 years, s/o Meghlal Mahato

¶5

Rajendra Mahato aged about 42 years, s/o Late Shankar Mahto

¶6

Birendra Mahato aged about 37 years, s/o Late Shankar Mahato

¶7

Shashi Mahato aged about 81 years, s/o Late Kahhu Mahato

¶8

Rabi Mahato aged about 63 years, s/o Late Upash Mahato

¶9

Biren Mahato aged about 46 years, s/o Late Upash Mahato

¶10

All are resident of village Baromasia, P.O. and P.S. Dhansar, District-Dhanbad.

¶11

.... .... …. Appellants/ Appellants / Plaintiffs.

¶12

Versus

¶13

Madan Mahato s/o Late Bhola Mahato, resident of village Baromasia, P.O. and P.S. Dhansar, District-Dhanbad.

¶14

.... .... …. Respondent / Respondent / Defendant

¶15

For the Appellants : Mr. Manjul Prasad, Sr. Advocate Mr. Arbind Kr. Sinha, Advocate Mr. Akhouri P. Sinha, Advocate Mr. Ankit Rohan, Advocate

¶16

P R E S E N T

¶17

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶18

By the Court :- Heard the learned senior counsel for the appellants. 2. This Second Appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure,

¶19

1908 has been preferred against the judgment of affirmance dated 11.07.2019 passed by learned District Judge-IV, Dhanbad in Civil Appeal No.88 of 2017

¶20

whereby and where under the learned first appellate court has affirmed the

¶21

¶22

S.A. No.294 of 2019

¶23

judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court, being Civil Judge (Senior Division)- V, Dhanbad in Title Suit No.171 of 2006 and dismissed the appeal.

¶24

The brief facts of the case is that the plaintiffs filed Title Suit No.171 of 2006 in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division)- V, Dhanbad with the prayer for declaration of Raiyati title and interest, of the plaintiffs over the land mentioned in Schedule A of the plaint and decree for confirmation of the possession of the plaintiffs over the land mentioned in Schedule B of the plaint and alternatively for recovery of possession of the land mentioned in Schedule B of the plaint; thirdly for declaration that the defendants did not acquire any right, title, interest over any portion of the land mentioned in Schedule A of the plaint, through sale-deed No.2839 dated 08.03.1988 and fourthly for a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men and servants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the land mentioned in Schedule A land and not to make any construction over these lands, cost of the suit and consequential reliefs.

¶25

The case of the plaintiffs in brief is that the suit Schedule A land was originally recorded in the name of Aghnu Mahato. After the death of Aghnu Mahato, his three sons namely Paran Mahato, Lakhu Mahato and Upesh Mahato jointly inherited the Schedule A land. After vesting of the Zamindari with the State, the ancestors of the plaintiffs paid rent to the State of Bihar. The plaintiffs are the descendants of Aghnu Mahto. The defendant intended to dispossess the plaintiffs from the land by claiming title over the same on the basis of the sale-deed dated 08.03.1988 executed by Sushila Devi and Shanti Bala Devi both daughters of Late Sripati Chakravorty who was the Khewatdar.

¶26

¶27

S.A. No.294 of 2019

¶28

The plaintiffs claim that Sripati Chakravorty has no interest in Schedule A land except receiving rent from Aghnu Mahato. Hence, the plaintiffs filed the suit.

¶29

The sole defendant denied all the allegations and took the plea that the suit is barred by several technical reasons including being barred by limitation. The defendant after purchase of the land has been in possession of the purchased land and growing seasonal crops and vegetables and paying rent to the Government after mutation of the land in his favour.

¶30

On the basis of the rival pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed the following four issues:-

¶31

(i) Whether the suit is maintainable as framed? (ii) Whether the plaintiffs have got valid cause of action for the suit or not? (iii) Whether the plaintiffs have got their valid raiyati title and interest upon the suit land more fully described in Schedule-A of the plaint?

¶32

(iv) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for decree of declaration and confirmation of possession upon the suit land, more fully described in the plaint?

¶33

In support of their case, the plaintiffs altogether examined four witnesses besides proving the documents which have been marked as Ext.1 to Ext. 4. From the side of the defendant, two witnesses have been examined besides proving the documents which have been marked Ext. A to D.

¶34

The learned trial court first took up issue Nos.(iii) and (iv) together and after considering the evidence in the record, came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their case of having any title over the suit land and decided the issue Nos.(iii) and (iv) in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiffs.

¶35

The learned trial court next took up the issue Nos.(i) and (ii) together and held that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief and the suit is not maintainable and dismissed the suit.

¶36

¶37

S.A. No.294 of 2019

¶38

Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court dated 28.08.2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)- V, Dhanbad in Title Suit No.171 of 2006, the plaintiffs preferred Civil Appeal No.88 of 2017 in the court of Principal District Judge, Bokaro which was ultimately heard and disposed of by the learned first appellate court being the District Judge-IV, Dhanbad by the impugned judgment as already indicated above.

¶39

The learned first appellate court after considering the materials available in the record and submissions made before its, formulated the following two points for determination:-

¶40

(I) Whether the appellants/plaintiffs have a valid right, title, interest and possession over the suit land?

¶41

(II) Whether the sale deed No.2839 dated 08/03/1988 confers any right, title or interest over any portion of the suit land described in Schedule- A of the plaint?

¶42

The learned first appellate court upon making the independent appreciation of the evidence in the record came to the conclusion that the documents produced by the plaintiffs show that the plaintiffs have title over only 62 decimals of land and not over entire 93 decimals of land. On the basis of the evidence in the record, the learned trial court came to the conclusion that Aghnu Mahato was not the sole Raiyat of the suit land but he was only a Bhagidar and a person holding Ardhbhag (half share), therefore, Aghnu Mahato is not occupancy raiyat and cannot acquire occupancy right and the sons of Aghnu Mahato have also purchased the land from the ex-landlord which also corroborates the same. So, the plaintiffs claiming their title through Aghnu Mahato have also no right, title and interest, therefore, the sale-deed of the

¶43

¶44

S.A. No.294 of 2019

¶45

defendant which has been marked Ext. B is a valid document, as it has been executed by the rightful owners being the legal heirs of Sripati Chakravorty and came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have got no valid right, title and interest over the Schedule A land and that the sale-deed marked Ext. B (No.2839) dated 08.03.1988 confers valid right, title and interest over 31 decimals of land mentioned in Schedule B of the plaint by virtue of the Exhibit -B and dismissed the appeal as already indicated above.

¶46

Learned senior counsel for the appellants submits that both the courts below have erred in not considering the pleadings and evidence of the plaintiffs/appellants in right perspective and have arrived at erroneous finding that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their title, hence, it is submitted that the impugned judgment and decree passed by both the courts below be set aside and the suit of the plaintiffs be decreed after formulating appropriate substantial question of law.

¶47

Having heard the submissions of the learned senior counsel for the appellants made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that as has rightly been held by both the courts below; the plaintiffs could not file any document of ownership or title in respect of the Schedule B land of the plaint. The documents filed by the plaintiffs are only in respect of 62 decimals of land out of the said plot consisting an area of 93 decimals. Whereas the remaining 31 decimals of land has been purchased by the defendant from the lawful owners thereof and the ancestors of the plaintiffs have also purchased (2/3^rd ) two-third out of the 93 decimals of land i.e. to say 62 decimals of land through two sons of Uday Chakravorty namely Bhupati Chakravorty and Jagbandhu

¶48

¶49

S.A. No.294 of 2019

¶50

Chakravorty and left the share of Sripati Chakravorty who was the other son of Uday Chakravorty and Sripati Chakravorty has sold his share of 31 decimals of land the defendant.

¶51

Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that both the courts below have not considered any inadmissible evidence nor have they excluded from consideration any admissible evidence, hence, the concurrent finding of facts arrived at by both the courts below cannot be termed as perverse.

¶52

Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that there is absolutely no substantial question of law involved in this Second Appeal.

¶53

Accordingly, this Second Appeal, being without any merit, is dismissed but under the circumstances without any costs.

¶54

Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the courts concerned forthwith.

¶55

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶56

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 03^rd of September, 2024 AFR/ Animesh-Abhiraj

¶57

¶58

S.A. No.294 of 2019

Bhola Mahato v. Madan Mahato

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhola Mahato v. Madan Mahato

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamruddin Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

R N Singh Alias Ram Nath Singh And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Jauhar Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Tanya Basu Alias Taniy Basu Vs the State of Jharkhand

The Consultants Cooperative Housing Construction Society Limited Vs Smt Ram Sakhi Devi

Jyotish Chandra Alias J Chandra Vs the State of Jharkhand