Dismissed¶35

Sahdeo Mahto v. Hadi Ram Mahto and Ors.

Jharkhand HC17 Jul 2025SA/119/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act; Section 87 CNT Act; revenue officer jurisdiction versus civil court; possession versus complicated question of title; jamabandi; mutation; revisional survey; R.S. Plot Nos. 832-833; C.S. Plot No. 458; Khata No. 324; sale deed dated 07.08.1942 by de facto guardian; sale deed dated 13.02.1970; claim based on written argument at appellate stage; substantial question of law; second appeal; Title Appeal No. 39/2001; Case No. 4111/91; Revenue Officer Dhanbad; Dhanbad; Konar Tand; Barwadda; surveyor report before final publication.

What did the court decide?

Revenue officers are concerned only with possession, not with complicated questions of decision on title; the first appellate court's finding to this effect, while reversing the Revenue Officer's order, is correct and justified under law. ¶33

Sahdeo Mahto Vs Hadi Ram Mahto and Ors. — Jharkhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned lower Appellate Court committed errors of law in allowing the claim regarding 40 decimals of land in plot No. 458 on the basis of written argument at the appellate stage, although the same was not mentioned in the original petition.

¶18

Court's answer

The plaintiffs' petition contained no whisper as to how they claimed 40 decimals of land; the fact emerged only in written argument. The defendant had knowledge of the 1942 deed from 13.02.1970, as his own 1970 sale deed referred to it, yet he raised no objection nor challenged its contents.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

¶33

Key takeaways

Interpretation of sale deeds or other documents falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the civil court.ratio¶33
The plaintiffs were raising a dispute of title which was wrongly considered by the revenue court.ratio¶33
Before final publication the surveyor verified and reported that the plaintiffs are in possession over 40 decimals of land in C.S. Plot No. 458 and R.S. Plot No. 832 towards the South, and that 6 decimals towards the north of Plot No. 832 should be cut down and added to the southern portion in the map.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Second Appeal (High Court of Jharkhand) against first appellate court judgment dated 24.06.2002 in Title Appeal No. 39/2001, which had reversed the Revenue Officer's order dated 14.07.2001 in Case No. 4111/91 under Section 87, Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, and directed correction of map and records of right regarding 40 decimals of land. Substantial question: whether the lower Appellate Court erred in allowing the claim to 40 decimals of land in plot No. 458 on the basis of written argument at the appellate stage when it was not mentioned in the original petition. Held: revenue officers are concerned only with possession, not with complicated questions of decision on title, and interpretation of sale deeds or other documents lies within the exclusive jurisdiction of the civil court; the plaintiffs' petition contained no whisper as to how they claimed the 40 decimals, that fact emerging only in written argument, but the defendant had knowledge of the 1942 deed from 13.02.1970 (his own 1970 sale deed having referred to it) and neither objected nor challenged its contents; the surveyor's pre-final-publication report recorded the plaintiffs in possession over 40 decimals in C.S. Plot No. 458/R.S. Plot No. 832 towards the South. No merits found in the substantial question of law. Appeal dismissed; pending I.A.s disposed of; trial/appellate court records directed to be sent back.

¶1

2025:JHHC:19510

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Second Appeal No. 119 of 2002

¶3

[Against the judgment dated 24.06.2002 passed by the Addl. District and Sessions Judge-VIII, Dhanbad in Title Appeal No. 39 of 2001]

¶4

¶5

Sahdeo Mahto, son of Late Bhatu Mahto, resident of village-Konar Tand, P.O. Birajpur, P.S. Barwadda, District-Dhanbad ... ... Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Hadi Ram Mahto, son of Late Budhu Mahto, resident of villageKonardih, P.O.-Birajpur, P.S.-Barwadda, District-Dhanbad.

¶8

Smt. Alaki Mahatain, W/o Late Jitu Mahto, R/o village Konar Tand, P.O. Birajpur, P.S. Barwadda, Govindpur, Dhanbad.

¶9

… … Respondents

¶10

-------For the Appellant : Mrs. J. Mazumdar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Ram Chandar Sahu, Advocate Mr. Om Prakash Singh, Advocate

¶11

PRESENT

¶12

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

¶13

¶14

J U D G M E N T

¶15

C.A.V. on 03.07.2025 Pronounced on 17/07/2025

¶16

The instant second appeal is directed against judgement dated 24.06.2002 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge-VIII, Dhanbad in Title Appeal No. 39/2001, whereby and whereunder the order dated 14.07.2001 passed in Case No. 4111/91 under section 87 of Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act by the Revenue Officer, Dhanbad has been reversed and set aside.

¶17

This appeal has been admitted vide order dated 22.09.2004 on the following substantial question of law:-

¶18

“Whether the learned lower Appellate Court has committed errors of law in allowing the claim regarding 40 decimals of land in plot No. 458 on the basis of written argument at the appellate stage although the same was not mentioned in the original petition”

¶19

Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal in a narrow campus is that C.S.Plot No. 438, Area 80 decimal of Khata No. 80 stood recorded in the name of Hiru Mahto and others showing possession of Hiru Mahto who died living behind him four sons, namely, Sibu Mahto, Matu Mahto,

¶20

2025:JHHC:19510

¶21

Guru Mahto and Sambhu Mahto. It is alleged that Guru Mahto and Sambhu Mahto had died issueless. Under deed dated 07.08.1942, Guru Mahto and Sambhu Mahto for self and as guardian of Sahdeo Mahto sold the entire 80 decimals land in favour of sons of Shibu Mahto, namely, Jitu Mahto, Buddhu Mahto and Chhathi Ram Mahto. Thereafter, vide deed dated 13.02.1970, Jitu Mahto and Buddhu Mahto sold the area of 40 decimals out of above C.S. Plot No. 458 in favour of Sahdeo Mahto, the appellant. During revisional survey, R.S. plot No. 832 & 833 is carved out of plot No. 458, which was recorded in the name of Sahdeo Mahto under Khata number 324. Thus, recording of name led to filing of case under section 87 of CNT Act in which the impugned order was passed by the Revenue Officer, Dhanbad, Shri R.P. Sharma, which was assailed in Title Appeal No. 39/2001. The Appellate Court reversed the order passed by the Revenue Officer recording reasons that Jamabandi No. 507 is standing in the name of Hadi Ram Mahto for lands of 40 decimal, but still has dismissed the case of plaintiff without any rhymes and reasons and as such the impugned order dated 14.07.2001 is bad in law and cannot be upheld, accordingly, set aside the order and allowed the appeal directing the learned court below to correct the map and records of right as prayed by the plaintiffs with regards to 40 decimal land in plot No. 83 in the name of plaintiffs of the original suit.

¶22

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned court below has failed to consider that the appellant has purchased 40 decimal lands from Jitu Mahto, son of Shibu Mahto and others through registered sale deed No. 2450 dated 13.02.1970 and Sahdeo Mahto became absolute owner of plot No. 832-833/458. The appellant has also got his name mutated in the Sirista of Government of Bihar and also Jamabandi was opened in his name and is paying rent to the State Government regularly. The above facts have been completely ignored by the learned appellate court as such impugned order is beyond the weight of evidence available on record. The learned appellate court has failed to appreciate that in the sale deed dated 7.8.1942, the name of father of the minor

¶23

¶24

S.A. No. 119 of 2002

¶25

2025:JHHC:19510

¶26

sellers, Sambhu Mahto and Sahdeo Mahto is mentioned. The appellate court further failed to appreciate that the sale deed executed by de facto guardians of minor is void and came to erroneous finding on the basis of said void deed alleged to have been executed by de facto guardian of Sahdeo Mahto and Sambhu Mahto. Therefore, the judgement of the learned appellate court is absolutely perverse and liable to be set aside, and this appeal may be allowed.

¶27

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs vehemently opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the appellant and submitted that the first appellate court has very wisely and aptly decided that the contested question of validity of sale deeds executed by the parties cannot be entered into in the proceeding by the revenue authorities, rather, such authorities are concerned only with the possession and not the complicated question of title. Therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order calling for any interference in this appeal, which is fit to be dismissed.

¶28

I have gone through the impugned orders passed by the revenue officer, Dhanbad as well as the first appellate court. From perusal of record, it is quite obvious that in the petition filed by the plaintiffs, there was no whisper as to how they claimed 40 decimals of land, but in their written argument filed by the parties, above fact came into light. It is also apparent that the defendant has not filed any objection to the petition filed by the plaintiffs, rather, he filed his written argument stating that he has purchased 40 decimal land of plot No. 458 from Jitu Mahto and others through the sale deed executed in the year 1942, The said Sahdeo Mahto has been shown to be son of Hiru Mahto, whose possession was shown in respect of 40 decimals land, but the same was wrong. The learned appellate court has also considered that the sale deed of 1970 on the basis of which the defendant claimed title, there is reference of the deed of 1942 through which the plaintiffs/appellant claims title. Therefore, the defendant has got knowledge of the deed of 1942 from 13.02.1970, but no objection was raised nor the contents of deed of 1942

¶29

¶30

S.A. No. 119 of 2002

¶31

2025:JHHC:19510

¶32

were challenged. It also appears that before the final publication, the land under question were verified from the surveyor who submitted report stating therein that over 40 decimals of land in C.S. plot No. 458 and R.S. Plot No. 832 towards South, the plaintiffs are in possession and has also recorded that 6 decimals land towards north of plot No. 832 is liable to be cut down and should be added towards southern portion of plot number 832 in the map.

¶33

The findings recorded by the appellate court, while reversing the order passed by the revenue officer, Dhanbad observed that the revenue officers are concerned only with the possession not with complicated question of decision on title, the interpretation of sale deeds or other documents comes within the ambit of exclusive jurisdiction of civil Court appears to be correct and justified under law. The Plaintiffs are raising a dispute of title which was wrongly considered by revenue court. The revenue officer although recorded findings that Jamabandi No. 507 is standing in the name of Hadi Ram Mahto in respect of 40 decimals land, but still dismissed the case of the plaintiffs without any valid reasons.

¶34

In view of the above discussion and reasons, I do not find any merits in the substantial question of law formulated in this appeal and no legal force in the points of arguments raised on behalf of the appellant.

¶35

Therefore, this appeal is dismissed.

¶36