Prasadi Rana Vs Radhey Ram

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

S.A. No. 104 of 2020

¶3

Prasadi Rana aged about 72 years son of late Chetan Rana resident of village Nimadih, P.O. – Dhureta, P.S. – Hirodih, District – Giridih

¶4

Fudo Devi aged about 48 years wife of late Jugal Ram resident of village Ghaskaridih, P.O. & P.S. – Deori, District – Giridih … … Appellants/Appellants/Defendants Versus

¶5

Radhey Ram son of late Ritu Ram resident of village Nimadih, P.O. – Dhureta, P.S. – Hirodih, District – Giridih

¶6

… … Plaintiff/Defendant/Respondent

¶7

Juni Ram son of late Ritu Ram

¶8

Bhim Ram son of late Ritu Ram

¶9

Paili Devi wife of Nathu Ram and

¶10

Rukani Masomat wife of late Bandhan Ram all resident of village Nimadih, P.O. – Dhureta, P.S. – Hirodih, District – Giridih all 2 to 5 Performa Defendants/Respondents Respondents

¶11

¶12

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶13

--For the Appellants : Mr. Shashi Kant Ojha, Advocate For the Respondents :

¶14

08 /07.01.2025 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants. 2. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 28.02.2020 passed by learned District Judge – I, Giridih in Civil Appeal No.18 of 2017, whereby the appeal preferred by the Appellants has been dismissed. The title suit was decreed in favour of the Plaintiff vide judgment dated 04.03.2017 in Title Suit No. 41 of 2008 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) III, Giridih.

¶15

3. The learned counsel for the Appellants has submitted that this second appeal be admitted on the substantial questions of law no. (C) as framed by the appellants in the memo of appeal which is as follows:-

¶16

Whether the learned courts were justified in disbelieving the registered Patta of 1919 (Exhibit A-3) and relying upon Sada Hukamnama and unregistered documents of the Plaintiffs while deciding the issue No. VII.

¶17

4. The learned counsel for the Appellants has submitted that the defendants (appellants herein) were claiming right, title, interest and possession by virtue of registered deed of the year 1919 followed by subsequent deed and the Plaintiff was claiming the right, title, interest and possession over the suit property on the basis of Sada Hukamnama followed by rent receipts issued by the ex-landlord and it was followed by entries made in the record of right and subsequent rent receipts issued by the state in their favour.

¶18

5. The learned counsel submits that the sale deed of the year 1919 has been disbelieved and consequently all the subsequent sale deeds arising there from have also been disbelieved. He submits that once there is a registered sale deed in connection with the property, there was no question of any reliance on Sada Hukamnama and also on the rent receipts issued by landlord and therefore, in view of these facts, in spite of the concurrent findings recorded by both the courts, the present appeal is fit to be admitted on the aforesaid substantial question of law.

¶19

Findings of this Court.

¶20

6. The suit was filed seeking a declaration of title of the plaintiff Radhey Ram son of Ritu Ram and proforma defendant no. 3 to 6 on the suit land appertaining to 2.08 acres of land in Khata No. 1 mouza, Nimadih, thana no. 312, P.S. Hirodih, District -Giridih.

¶21

7. The plaintiff has claimed that 10.56 acres of land of khata no. 1 mouza Nimadih was the bakast land of tenure holder Gosal Kharagdhari Gir which consisted of 16 plots and vide hukumnama dt.‘ 10 bhado son 1328 sal fasli’ was settled in favour of the Ritu Ram, grandfather of the plaintiff. In order to establish this fact, the plaintiff has filed and proved the certified copy of Khatian of khata no. 1 of mouza Nimadih as Ext. 3, zamindari rent receipts issued by the then landlord Ext. 1/G, 1/H, certified copy of Register II, rent receipts issued by the government of Bihar and then by the government of Jharkhand (Ext. 1/A to 1/F and 1/1 to 1/5).

¶22

8. On the other hand, the contesting defendants claimed that 2.86 acres of different plots under khata no. 1 of mouza Nimadih was

¶23

2

¶24

settled in favour of one Balia Kaharin by virtue of registered raiyati patta no. 673 dated 24.04.1919. It was the case of the contesting defendants that after the said settlement of land Balia Kaharin came in khas possession over the settled 2.86 acres of land, out of which 1.10 acres of land was sold and transferred to Most. Umia by virtue of registered sale deed no. 9128 dt 08.10.1953 and Umia came in possession and enjoyed the same. Umia died leaving behind her son Jagdish Ram who transferred 82 and ½ decimals of land out of 1.10 acres to defendant no.2, Fudo Devi vide registered deed of gift dated 06.06.1990 who came in possession and sold the same to defendant no.1 by registered deed dated 16.05.2008 who came in possession of the property. It was the case of the contesting defendants that since the land was settled through a registered patta in favour of Balia Kaharin, there is presumption of genuineness of execution and delivery of possession and that Balia Kaharin acquired valid right, title and interest over the suit land, whereas the claim of the plaintiff is based on a sada Hukumnama, which is an unregistered document and hence was not admissible as evidence of title.

¶25

9. As mentioned in the trial court’s judgement itself, both the parties relied upon the full bench decision of the Patna High Court in the case of Most. Ugani and another Vs. Chowa Mahto and other reported in AIR 1968 Patna 302 .

¶26

10. On the basis of the plaint and written statement, the following issues were framed by the learned trial court:

¶27

i. Is the suit maintainable in present form?

¶28

ii. Is the suit barred by law of adverse possession, waiver, estoppel and acquiescence?

¶29

iii. Is the suit bad for non-joinder and mis joinder of parties?

¶30

iv. Is the suit liable to be rejected U/O VII of the CPC?

¶31

v. Is there any cause of action for this suit?

¶32

vi. Is the court fee paid sufficient for the suit?

¶33

vii. Have the plaintiff and proforma defendant nos. 3 to 6 valid right and title on the suit land?

¶34

3

¶35

viii. Are the plaintiff and proforma defendant nos. 3 to 6 entitled to any other relief or reliefs under law and equity?”

¶36

11. The core issue was issue no. VII. The findings of the learned trial court are as under:-

¶37

“ 13. Issue no. VII ………In view of the rival contentions advanced on behalf of the plaintiff and the defendant, I scrutinized the oral and the documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the respective parties to substantiate their respective claims. On the perusal of the Ext. 3 (khalian of Khata No.1), it appears that altogether 10.56 acres of 16 plots of khata no.1, khebat no. 1/1 of mouza Nimadih thana no. 32 has been entered as the bakast land of tenure holder of Gosai Kharagdhari Gir. The bakast land is the land which were in cultivating possession of the landlord and were unprivileged land in direct possession of the proprietor or tenure holder. The landlord was having competency either to cultivate it personally or through his presence or settle it to any raiyat. After settlement it becomes the raiyati land of the raiyat. It is the case of the plaintiff that the landlord had settled the entire 10.56 acres land to Ritu Ram by granting hukumnama dt. 10 Badho sun 1328 sal fasli and settlee came in possession of the settled land and started paying rent to the landlord. The only objection of such settlement made on behalf of the defendant is that such settlement was through a sada hukumnana and therefore, it was admissible in evidence. It appears that both the parties have relied upon the same judgement of full bench of Patna High Court. So it is necessary to first mention here the findings of the full bench of the Patna High Court . Through that judgment, it was held that the unregistered hukumnama though inadmissible can be looked into to show the nature and character of possession. It was further held that it is true that valid agricultural lease may be created by a registered instrument and if such an instrument is created, the delivery of possession is not necessary to prove the title of the lessee. If however, the lease is not registered and is hence, inadmissible as evidence of title, it will be open to the tenant concerned to show that he obtained raiyati interest on the strength of actual possession and acceptance of rent by the landlord. It is also true that there is presumption that a registered document is validly executed. A registered document, therefore, primafacie would be valid in law but such presumption is rebuttable and the onus to prove by adducing rebuttable evidence is on the person who wants to rebut the presumption. Here in this case, the plaintiff has claimed that the registered instrument alleged to have been executed in favour of Balia Kaharin in the year 1919 was a paper transaction created in favour of a fictitious lady named Balia Kaharin. On the other hand, the plaintiff has claimed that even though settlement made in favour of Ritu Ram

¶38

4

¶39

was through an unregistered instrument, Ritu Ram obtained raiyati interest on the strength of actual possession and acceptance of rent by the landlord………..

¶40

………..Hence, in such facts and circumstances, I have come to the conclusion that the registered patta crated in favour of Balia Kaharin was a paper transaction without the delivery of possession to Balia Kaharin. Whereas the settlement in favour of Ritu Ram, though was through an unregistered document but was followed by the delivery of possession and by issuing of rent receipts by the then landlord Gosai Kharagdhari Gir, Ritu Ram was also recognized as tenant with respect to 10.56 acres land after the vesting by making an entry in the register II (Ext.6) maintained by the state and thus the plaintiff and proforma defendant No. 3 to 6 have got valid right, title and interest on the suit land which is part of the same 10.56 land settled in favour of Ritu Ram by the then ex-landlord Gosain Kharagdhari Gir, Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of plaintiff and as against the defendant……”

¶41

12. Thus, the learned trial court while deciding issue no. VII has held that the registered patta created in favour of Balia Kaharin was a paper transaction without the delivery of possession to Balia Kaharin. Whereas the settlement in favour of Ritu Ram, though was through an unregistered document but was followed by the delivery of possession and by issuing of rent receipts by the then landlord Gosai Kharagdhari Gir, Ritu Ram was also recognized as tenant with respect to 10.56 acres land after the vesting by making an entry in the register II (Ext.6) maintained by the state. It has been held that the plaintiff and proforma defendant No. 3 to 6 have got valid right, title and interest on the suit land which is part of the same 10.56 land settled in favour of Ritu Ram by the then ex-landlord Gosain Kharagdhari Gir. Accordingly, issue no. VII was decided in favour of plaintiff .So far as issue No. VI is concerned, it has been held that the plaintiff and proforma defendant no. 3 to 6 have got valid right, title and interest on the suit land, which is part of the same 10.56 acres land settled in favour of Ritu Ram by the then ex-landlord Gosain Kharagdhari Gir and they were also in possession of the settled 10.56 acres including the suit land and he had to approach the court only when he felt that there was apprehension of denying his legal character by the

¶42

5

¶43

defendant. Accordingly, suit for declaration of title without relief of possession was held to be maintainable.

¶44

13. The learned appellate court also considered the issue no.VII, which was the most important issue as to whether the plaintiff and proforma-defendant no.3 to 6 have valid right, title, and interest on the suit land. While deciding the issue no.VII, the learned appellate court recorded a finding that the plaintiff was claiming the property in Khata No. 1 and also Khata No. 31 and after vesting of Zamindari in the State of Bihar, said Ritu Ram was paying rent of Khata No. 31 with Khata No. 1 and two rent receipts were also exhibited which were issued by the then landlord as Exhibit 1-G and 1-H and the certified copy of khatian was also exhibited as Exhibit 3; sada hukumnama was exhibited as Exhibit 5 and after considering the materials, the appellate court held that the registered patta in favour of Balia Kaharin was a paper transaction without delivery of possession and held that settlement in favour of Ritu Ram, although unregistered, was followed by delivery of possession and rent receipts and also supported by the certified copy of Register II which showed that land was settled in favour of Ritu Ram by the then landlord and was supported by rent receipts.

¶45

14. The findings in connection with issue no. 7 as given by the learned appellate court is quoted as under:

¶46

“15. ISSUE NO.VII

¶47

The perusal of pleading of para 7,8, and 11 of the plaintiffs/respondents transpires to this court that the plaintiff has also claimed that in addition to the settled land of KHATA no.1 he was also having some ancestral land in KHATA no.31 and after vesting of the ZAMINDARI in the State of BIHAR, JAMABANDI was open jointly in the name of Ritu Ram by paying rent of KHATA no.31 With KHATA no. 1 land and thereafter rent receipts started to be issued jointly in the lands of two KHATAS and the perusal of two rent receipts issued by the then landlord (Ext. IG and 1H) and C.C. of KHATIYAN of KHATA no. 1( Εxt. 3) SADA HUKUMNAMA( Ext.5) transpires to this court that it is apparent that JAMABANDI was opened in the local Circle Office in the name of Ritu Ram after abolition of ZAMINDARI and the same proves basis of said Ritu Ram and his successor and on behalf of the defendants/appellants only one registered PATTA of

¶48

6

¶49

the year 1919 has been proved before the learned trial court but no any rent receipts of ZAMINDARI has been produced in favour of Balia Kaharin and Prasadi Rana( D.W.1) in para 21 and 22 of his deposition admitted that the defendants are not in possession of any rent receipts issued by the then leandlord Gosai Kharagdhari Gir. Therefor, it is apparent that the defendants/appellants could not bring on the record any rent receipts of any year in between 1919 to 1952 and the rent receipts(Ext. B to B/7) have been proved on behalf of the defendants/appellants and these are in respect of KHATA no. 6/1 and area also is different and the perusal of cancellation of ZAMABANDI( Ext. 2) also shows that vide order dated 13.02.1991 ZAMABANDI in the name of Jagdish Ram has been cancelled and basis of claim of title created in favour of Balia Kaharin 12 % acres of PLOT no. 253 was also settled in favour of Balia Kaharin and KHATIYAN of KHATA no. 6 also proved showing name of Masomat Anpi and plot no.253 was land of different KHATA and Gosain Kharagdhari Gir had no right over the land of said KHATA and rent receipts issued in favour of Masomat Umia shows column of KHATA no. in fraction so rent receipts are not with respect to KHATA no.1 and ZAMABANDI has been cancelled vide cancellation case no.17/1990-1991 and defendants/appellants not challenged said order and said order is still intact and name of defendants/appellants not mentioned in the Revenue Records relating to suit land which proves that Registered PATTA in favour of Balia Kaharin was a paper transaction without delivery of possession and settlement in favour of Ritu Ram although unregistered was followed by delivery of possession and rent receipts( Ext. 1/A to 1/S) and C.C. of Register II( Ext. 6) shows that plaintiff and proforma defendant no. 3 to 6/respondents have got right, title and interest on the suit land as part of same 10.56 acre of land settled in favour of Ritu Ram by then said land lord. So, preponderance of evidence is in favour of the plaintiff and the learned court below rightly decided issue no. VII in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants and same does not require any interference in appeal. Hence issue no.VII is decided in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents and against the defendants/appellants.”

¶50

15. Thus, the learned appellate court also considered the materials on record and held that Ritu Ram was recognized as tenant with respect to 10.56 acres of land by the then landlord followed by delivery of possession and issuance of rent receipt and after vesting, an appropriate entry was made in connection with his right under Register II and upheld the judgement of the learned trial court that the

¶51

7

¶52

Plaintiff and proforma, Defendant No. 3 to 6, had got valid right, title, interest and possession in favour of Ritu Ram (father of the plaintiff) . 16. This Court finds that there are concurrent findings recorded by both the courts by referring to the materials on record with regard to right, title, interest and possession of Ritu Ram, which was created by virtue of settlement through sada hukumnama made by the ex-landlord Gosai Khargdhari Gir, who settled the property in favour of Ritu Ram and, after vesting the zamindari, his name was also registered in Register II. The learned trial court has rightly relied upon the judgement passed by the Full Bench of Hon’ble Patna High Court (supra) while deciding the issue no. VII in favour of the plaintiff and such findings have been rightly upheld by the appellate court. In the judgement passed by the Full Bench of Hon’ble Patna High Court (supra) it has been held in Paragraph 10, 11 and 17 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted as under: -

¶53

“10 . It is true that a valid agricultural lease may be created by a registered instrument as pointed out in Jangal Singh v. Mukund Kumar, AIR 1948 Pat 446, and, if such a registered document is created, delivery of possession is not necessary to prove the title of the lessee. If, however, the lease is not registered, and is, therefore, inadmissible as evidence of title, it will always be open to the tenant concerned to show that he obtained raiyati interest on the strength of actual possession and acceptance of rent by the landlord. There is also no legal bar to a person claiming raiyati interest on two alternative pleas. He may claim such a right on the basis of a written document of lease. If, however, such claim fails on the ground that the document, being compulsorily registrable, was not registered, nevertheless his alternative claim based on actual possession, coupled with acceptance of rent by the landlord, may succeed. In that case, the unregistered lease will be admissible for the collateral purpose of proving the nature of possession.

¶54

11. The various decisions of the Patna High Court dealing with the legal effect of unregistered agricultural leases, which are compulsorily registrable, do not apply to the facts of this case. Thus, Ramautar Singh v. Juthi Tatma, 18 Pat LT 1012, on which Mr. Prem Lal relied, does not contain any discussion as to whether, apart from the

¶55

8

¶56

unregistered patta, the lessee remained in possession of the land and paid rent to the landlord, who accepted the same and granted rent receipts. The learned Judges have relied on a portion of the observations in AIR 1924 Pat 641; but they have not considered the other portion of the observations in the judgment already referred to. In Briksh Koeri v. Awadh Bihari Lal, AIR 1961 Pat 308, where rent was claimed on the basis of an unregistered kabuliyat, it was held that the rate of rent was a term of the lease, and, as the kabuliyat was not registered, oral evidence to prove the said rate of rent was not admissible. The learned Judges were not dealing with a case where, apart from the unregistered kabuliyat, there was evidence of actual possession and granting of rent receipts by the landlord. Such receipts may show the rent accepted by the landlord for the lands.

¶57

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.”

¶58

17. The point raised by the appellants is squarely covered by the aforesaid Full Bench of Hon’ble Patna High Court (supra) and both the courts have decided the issue in favour of the plaintiff on the principles of law laid down in the full bench judgement. This court is of the considered view that no question of law much less any substantial question of law arises for consideration in this second appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.

¶59

18. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not pressed.

¶60

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶61

Saurav/

¶62

9

Prasadi Rana v. Radhey Ram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prasadi Rana v. Radhey Ram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagdish Kumhar Vs Kishori Devi

Lok Nath Jaiswal Vs Kedar Nath Jaiswal

Smt Sushila Sinha Vs Ramashish Choudhary

Alok Bhushan Vs Sri Arujun Kumar Prasad

Anita Kisku Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sandhya Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand Formerly Being the State of Bihar through Deputy Commissioner