Dismissed

Md Gulam And Ors. v. Kanti Devi And Ors.

Jharkhand HC9 Dec 2024SA/95/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second appeal by plaintiffs whose suit for declaration of title and injunction over land was dismissed by both courts below. The High Court held that an unproduced Hukumnama and rent receipts or Register II entries create no title, found no substantial question of law, and dismissed the appeal.

What the court decided

AI extract

Md Gulam And Ors. Vs Kanti Devi And Ors. — Property and Title | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

S.A. No. 95 of 2017

¶3

(Against the judgment dated 14.06.2016 passed by learned District Judge, - II, Bermo at Tenughat in Title Appeal No. 28 of 2012)

¶4

Md. Gulam

¶5

Gayasuddin Ansari

¶6

Md. Gulam Sabir

¶7

All sons of Late Abdul Mian, residents of village- Raja Bazar, P.O. & P.S.- BTPS, Bokaro, Dist.- Bokaro

¶8

…… Appellants/ Appellants/ Plaintiffs

¶9

Versus

¶10

Kanti Devi, W/o Chandra Sekhar Rajak

¶11

Ashok Rajak, S/o Late Ganesh Rajak

¶12

Etwaria Dhobin, W/o Late Ganesh Rajak

¶13

Mahabir Saw

¶14

Murli Saw

¶15

Sl. no. 4 & 5, are sons of Late Chaitu Saw, all residents of village- Raja Bazar, P.O. & P.S.- BTPS, Bokaro, Dist.- Bokaro

¶16

……. Respondents/ Respondents/Defendants

¶17

For the Appellants : Mr. Manjul Prasad, Sr. Adv. Mr. Baban Prasad , Adv. Mr. Akhauri Prakhar Sinha , Adv. Mr. Aniket Rohan , Adv.

¶18

For the Respondents : Mr. Anupam Anand , Adv.

¶19

Mr. Pranav Kumar , Adv.

¶20

P R E S E N T

¶21

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶22

By the Court :- Heard the parties.

¶23

This Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 14.06.2016 passed by learned

¶24

SA No. 95 of 2017

¶25

¶26

District Judge, - II, Bermo at Tenughat in Title Appeal No. 28 of 2012 whereby and whereunder, learned First Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal with costs.

¶27

The brief facts of the case is that the plaintiff filed Title Suit no. 34 of 2001 in the court of learned Civil Judge, Bermo at Tenughat dated 09.07.2012 whereby and where under, learned trial court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff filed with a prayer for declaration of their right, title and possession over the suit land, permanent injunction restraining the defendant from going over the suit land and other reliefs.

¶28

The case of the plaintiff in brief is that plot no. 1660 under Khata no. 91 of village Govindpur was acquired by Damodar Valley Corporation (DVC). Out of the remaining area 20 Decimals of land was orally settled by the ex-landlord in favour of the ancestors of the plaintiff and 12 decimals of land was settled by one separate settlement and remaining 8 decimals of land was settled by another separate settlement. The landlord used to collect the rent from the ancestors of the plaintiff and granted Fard Amin Report on 15.06.1944 as a proof of oral settlement. In the year 1986, the DVC laid its claim over the entire lands hence, the plaintiff filed the suit.

¶29

In their written statement the defendant challenged the maintainability of the suit on various technical grounds and denied the averments made in the plaint. The defendants challenged the veracity of the documents filed by the plaintiff and challenged the maintainability of the suit.

¶30

Learned trial court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, settled the following ten issues:-

¶31

i. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form?

¶32

ii. Whether the plaintiff has got valid cause of action for the suit?

¶33

iii. Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation and adverse possession?

¶34

SA No. 95 of 2017

¶35

¶36

iv. Whether the suit is hit by section 34 of the specific relief Act?

¶37

v. Whether the suit is hit by principle of waiver, acquiescence and estoppel?

¶38

vi. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?

¶39

vii. Whether the suit is undervalued ?

¶40

viii. Whether plaintiffs have got right, title and possession over the suit land?

¶41

ix. Whether plaintiff is entitled for decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit land?

¶42

x. To what relief/reliefs plaintiffs are entitled for ?

¶43

In support of their case, the plaintiff examined seven witnesses and proved the documents which have been marked as Ext. 1 to 6/g. From the side of the defendants, four witnesses were examined and the defendants also proved the documents which have been marked as Ext. A to D.

¶44

Learned trial court first took up issue nos. (viii) and (ix) together and after considering the evidence in the record, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has not been able to prove his case and decided the issue number (viii) and (ix) against the plaintiff.

¶45

Learned trial court then took up issue nos. (iii) to (vii) together and disposed of the same as not pressed.

¶46

Learned trial court lastly took up issue nos. (i) (ii) and (x) together and after considering the evidence in the record, came to the conclusion that there is no valid cause of action for filing the suit and the suit is not maintainable and the plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief and dismissed the suit.

¶47

Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by learned trial court, the plaintiff filed in Title Appeal No. 28 of 2012 in the court of learned Principal District Judge, Bokaro which was ultimately heard and disposed of by learned First Appellate Court, as already indicated above.

¶48

SA No. 95 of 2017

¶49

¶50

12.Learned First Appellate Court considering the materials available in the record and submissions made before it, formulated the following point for determination;-

¶51

“ Whether the appellants being the plaintiffs during trial had succeeded in proving the title over the suit property or not?”

¶52

13.Learned First Appellate Court considered the Hukumnama which is the basis regarding the claim of the title of the plaintiffs over the suit land, has not been brought on record by the plaintiffs , hence, learned First Appellate Court did not accept the contention of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs acquired title over the suit land, on the basis of Hukumnama and went on to hold that the plaintiffs had no title over the suit land.

¶53

14.Learned First Appellate Court considering the exhibit 2 which is Register II in respect of the suit land to be a nullity, in the absence of any order, on the basis of which, such entry was made and held that the plaintiffs have failed to establish their right, title and interest over the suit land and dismissed the appeal.

¶54

Learned senior counsel for the appellants submits that both the courts below have misinterpreted the Ext. 1, i.e. the certified copy of the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit no. 13 of 1986 which has been renumbered as Title Suit no. 07 of 1990 in which, the suit was decreed in favour of the defendant, who was plaintiff in the said suit, hence, it is submitted that the judgment and decree passed in this appeal, being not sustainable in law, the same be set aside after formulating appropriate substantial question of law and the suit of the plaintiffs be decreed.

¶55

Having heard the submissions made in the bar and after going through the materials available in the record, it is

¶56

SA No. 95 of 2017

¶57

¶58

pertinent to mention here that it is the settled principle of law that the plaintiff has to stand on his own legs and he cannot take the advantage of the weakness of the defendant.

¶59

Now coming to the facts of the case, the undisputed fact remains that the plaintiff though is claiming title on the basis of the unregistered Hukumnama , the plaintiffs could not succeed in bringing the said unregistered Hukumnama in evidence; without them a plausible reason.

¶60

It is a settled principle of law that entries in the revenue record do not create or extinguish title and such entries are made generally for fiscal purposes. So far as the Ext. 1 i.e. i.e. the certified copy of the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit no. 13 of 1986 is concerned, the same will not be of any help to the plaintiff, firstly, because the same was decreed in favour of the defendant, who was the plaintiff of that suit and the plaintiffs herein, were not party to that suit. So, the only document of title, on the basis of which, the plaintiffs tried to establish their title is the rent receipt. As already indicated above, it being the settled principle of law that rent receipts or the entry in the Register II, without any supportive order sheet, to show as to on what basis the entry in the Register II was made, does not either create or extinguish any right or title, hence, this Court do not find any illegality in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the courts below, hence, there is absolutely no substantial question of law involved in this appeal.

¶61

Accordingly, this appeal being without any merit is dismissed.

¶62

Let a copy of this Judgment be sent to the Court concerned forthwith and with the disposal of this Second Appeal, the interlocutory application, if any, also stand

SA No. 95 of 2017

disposed of.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)

¶67

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, the 9^th December, 2024 /AFR

¶68

SA No. 95 of 2017

¶69

Md Gulam And Ors. v. Kanti Devi And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Md Gulam And Ors. v. Kanti Devi And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lileshwar Singh Vs Tulsi Singh And Ors.

Angira Nand Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Anjum Alias Anjum Khatoon Vs the State of Jharkhand

Manish Kumar Kashyap Vs the State of Jharkhand

Anandpal Sahu Vs Arjun Puri And Ors.

Sikandar Kumar Swarnkar Vs the State of Jharkhand