Smt Long Devi Vs Smt Lakhpati Devi

( 2025:JHHC:37984 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Second Appeal No. 08 of 2019

Smt. Long Devi, aged about 81 years (dead and substituted vide order dated 26.07.2023) 1.(a) Anil Kumar Singh son of late Jogendra Prasad Singh

¶5

1.(b) Ramesh Kumar Singh son of Late Jogendra Prasad Singh

¶6

1.(c) Sakuntala Devi widow of late Ashok Kumar Singh

¶7

1(d) Abhishek Kumar Singh, S/o late Ashok Kumar Singh 1(e) Kumar Rishikesh S/o late Ashok Kumar Singh All R/o Rani Kothi, Williams Town, Deoghar P.O. and P.S. and Sub-Division and District-Deoghar 1(f) Sneha Singh D/o Ashok Kumar Singh W/o Sri Amit Singh, R/o Nilkanth Vihar College Road, Deoghar, P.O. P.S. Sub Division and District-Deoghar 1(g) Neha Singh D/o Late Ashok Kumar Singh W/o Sri Sashank Priyadarshi, R/o Ambey Garden, Flat, Deoghar, P.O., P.S. SubDivision & Dist.-Deoghar … Defendant/Appellants/Appellants Versus

¶8

Smt. Lakhpati Devi, wife of Mathura Prasad Singh, (dead and substituted vide order dated 26/07/2023) 1(a) Madan Kumar Singh S/o late Mathura Prasad Singh 1(b) Rajesh Kumar Singh S/o late Mathura Prasad Singh Both residents of Rani Kothi, Williams Town, Deoghar, P.O.Deoghar, P.S. and Sub Division and Dist. Deoghar 1(c) Mina Devi D/o late Mathura Prasad Singh w/o not known R/o Krishna Puri, In front of Green Accers (Marriage Hall), Deoghar, P.O. and P.S. and Sub Division and Dist.-Deoghar 1(d) Anjali Devi D/o Late Mathura Prasad Singh W/o Devendra Singh, R/o Jhousagarhi near House of Sri Basukinath Chouda, Advocate, Deoghar, P.O. P.S. Sub Division and Dist. Deoghar … … Plaintiff/Respondent/Respondents

¶9

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶11

¶12

For the Appellants : Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta, Advocate

¶13

¶14

12 /16.12.2025 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants. 2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 24.09.2018 (decree signed on 29.09.2018) passed by District Judge, V. Deoghar in Title Appeal No. 9/2007, whereby the learned 1^st appellate Court has dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgement and decree dated 27.02.2007 (decree signed on 12.03.2007) passed by the learned Sub Judge-VII Deoghar in Title Suit No. 09 of 1998.

¶15

( 2025:JHHC:37984 )

¶16

3. The learned trial court has been pleased to decree the suit and the defendants have lost in both the courts. Consequently, the defendants are the appellants before this court.

¶17

4. The learned counsel for the appellants while giving the factual background of the case has submitted that total 19 Kattha 16 dhur of land belonged to the recorded tenant and her son Anil Kumar Chatterjee had sold portion of the property to the vendor plaintiff and portion to the defendant.

¶18

5. He submits that the plaintiff claimed to have purchased 5 kattha from the vendor who in turn had purchased the property from Anil Kumar Chatterjee. The sale deed executed by Anil Kumar Chatterjee is of the year 1966 and the purchase by the plaintiff of the same property is of the year 1972 which was followed by mutation.

¶19

6. He submits that Anil Kumar Chatterjee had further sold 10 kattha 11 ½ dhur to the defendant in the year 1968 and 4 kattha 12 dhur to the defendant in the year 1975.

¶20

7. He submits that suit property was 2 kattha ¼ dhur which was equivalent to around 40 dhurs and the specific case of the plaintiff was that the suit property of 2 kattha ¼ dhur was part of the property purchased by the plaintiff in the year 1966/ 1972 which was to the extent of 5 kattha. The learned counsel submits that the learned court has recorded a finding that Anil Kumar Chatterjee had sold excess to 7 ½ dhur to the defendant and consequently the suit could not have been decreed with respect to 2 kattha ¼ dhur. The suit could have been decreed at best only to the extent of 7 ½ dhur.

¶21

8. This court finds that the suit was filed seeking a declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property described in Schedule and also a prayer was made seeking confirmation of possession and further if the plaintiff was found dispossessed from any portion of the suit property, a prayer was also made for recovery of possession. The suit property was measuring 2 katthas and 2 ¼ dhur (out of total area 5 katthas) (5349 square ft.) in Jamabandi No. 14/3410/2 in Ward No. 11 (Now ward no. 10) part of

¶22

( 2025:JHHC:37984 )

¶23

holding No. 114 (old) present holding no. 144 (part of Town plan plot no. 271) and the boundaries were as follows:-

¶24

North:- Land of defendant South: Municipal Road East :- Land and House of plaintiff West:- passage of part of town plan plot no. 271 thereafter Municipal Road.

¶25

9. It was the case of the plaintiff that property measuring 5 katthas out of total area 19 katthas 16 dhurs, originally belonged to one Nirodha Sundari Devi who had purchased the same from Rohini Estate, constructed house and became absolute owner. Nirodha Sundari Devi died in the year 1951 leaving behind her only son Anil Kumar Chatterjee who got his name mutated. Anil Kumar Chatterjee transferred the property to Jeevan Prabha Dey by registered sale deed in the year 1966. On 24.05.1972, Jeevan Prabha Dey transferred the property to the plaintiff vide sale deed no. 33/86 and the plaintiff got his name mutated.

¶26

10. It was the case of the plaintiff that the defendant illegally got two sale deeds executed by Anil Kumar Chatterjee who in the year 1968 had transferred 10 kattha 11 ½ dhur and subsequently in the year 1975 transferred 4 katthas 12 dhurs in favour of defendants vide two registered sale deeds no. 3296 and 3466 respectively. The sale deeds in favour of the defendant neither had the correct area of land nor had any specification about the transfer/sale made in favour of the defendant. It was the case of the plaintiff that the land which was transferred by Anil Kumar Chatterjee in favour of Jeevan Prabha Dey measuring 5 katthas was given to the plaintiff bearing Jamabandi No. 14/3416/2 with specific boundaries. The plaintiff contended that the defendant was trying to take over 2 katthas and 2 ½ dhurs within the land of the plaintiff as mentioned in the schedule to the plaint and interfering with the possession of the plaintiff which has resulted in filing of the suit.

¶27

11. The defendant contested the suit and asserted that 2 katthas 2 ¼ dhur as shown in the schedule of the plaint was not the land of predecessor in interest of the plaintiff i.e. Smt. Jeevan Prabha Dey. It

¶28

( 2025:JHHC:37984 )

¶29

was the case of the defendant that after death of Nirodha Sundari devi, her son Anil Kumar Chatterjee inherited the entire property bearing Jamabandi No. 14/3415 having area of 19 katthas 16 dhur who in turn transferred a portion to Smt. Jeevan Prabha Dey vide registered sale deed but this fact was not disclosed by the plaintiff with reference to the sale deed relied upon by the plaintiff bearing no. 2870/1966. It was asserted that no doubt 5 katthas together with house are mentioned in the sale deed but there was no mention that the area 5 kattha is according to Rohini measurement and therefore for all intent and purposes, standard measurement of 720 sq. ft. per katha is to be taken and the plaintiff had misunderstood 5 kattha mentioned in the sale deed according to local Rohini measurement and even the measurement of the land proved that 5 kattha mentioned in the sale deed is according to the standard measurement of 720 sq. ft. per kattha. It was the case of the defendant that the suit land 2 kattha 2/4 dhur was never sold to Smt. Jeevan Prabha Dey nor she possessed the said land and therefore the plaintiff also did not possess the same. It was asserted that the plaintiff was neither the owner of the suit land and nor was in possession of the suit land.

¶30

12. The learned Trial Court has considered the various sale deeds involved in this case with respective boundaries. The learned court recorded from the oral evidence of the defendant that they were in possession of the suit property and they have been paying rent for which rent receipts were duly exhibited and the municipal tax payment was also exhibited as exhibit B to B/10 which is issued in the name of the defendant. The court ultimately held that the suit property is part and parcel of the 5 Katthas of land which the plaintiff had purchased from Jeevan Prabha Dey. The court also considered that the plaintiff was in possession of the property. The court also considered the evidence of the advocate commissioner and held that the Advocate commissioner had annexed a map (exhibit-7) which showed the location and position of the property. The court recorded that the defendant had not claimed adverse possession with respect to the property and the plaintiff had also produced rent receipts and

¶31

( 2025:JHHC:37984 )

¶32

municipal tax receipts which proved that the plaintiff was paying rent and taxes with respect to 5 katthas of land and therefore the plaintiff has been able to prove title in connection with 5 katthas of land. Ultimately the court held that the suit property is a part of 5 katthas of land purchased by plaintiff from Jeevan Prabha Dey and she is in possession of the property as an owner of the property.

¶33

13. The learned 1^st appellate court also considered the materials on record and ultimately held that the plaintiff is an owner of the suit property purchased from Jeevan Prabha Dey and dismissed the appeal. The appellate court also considered various sale deeds and measurements and also argument of the appellant. The court also recorded that one Kattha as per Rohini measurement is 2531 Sq. ft. and as per standard measurement, it is 720 square ft. But the property which was purchased from Jeevan Prabha Dey vide sale deed dated 24.05.1972 the area per Kattha was 2531 square ft. and recorded that the properties were sold and purchased with respect to the standard measurement as per Rohini measurement and not as per standard measurement. The court also considered the report of the Advocate Commissioner in detail which matched with the area measured by the standard of Rohini measurement. The 1^st appellate court recorded concurrent findings and ultimately dismissed the appeal.

¶34

14. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, this court finds that the aforesaid facts with respect to sale of property through sale deeds is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that as per the finding recorded by the learned 1^st appellate court, Anil Kumar Chatterjee had sold 7 ½ dhur in excess. However, this court finds that the finding recorded by the learned courts does not stop at that, rather the report of the Survey Commissioner has been taken into consideration in detail who has stated that the sale deed of the defendant dated 27.05.1975 mentioned that it was relating to 4 kattha 12 dhur but upon measurement it was found to the extent of 3 kattha 12 dhur which upon physical measurement was found 1 kattha less. The court also recorded that the defendant had actually purchased area of 14 kattha 16 dhur only although in her sale deed total area was

¶35

( 2025:JHHC:37984 )

¶36

mentioned as 15 kattha 23 dhur and ultimately the appeal has been dismissed. Admittedly, the total land initially available with Anil Kumar Chatterjee was 19 kuthas 16 dhurs. The learned 1^st appellate court has recorded a clear finding of fact that Anil Kumar Chatterjee had sold excess land over what was available to him for sale and that the plaintiff had acquired right, title and possession of the land as per the deed and that the suit land formed part of the purchased land of the plaintiff. Thus, the argument of the appellant that at best the suit could have been decreed only to the extent of 7 ½ dhurs is not acceptable in view of the finding of facts recorded by the learned court. Learned counsel has not pointed out any perversity in the matter of appreciation of evidence by the learned court.

¶37

15. In view of the aforesaid findings of facts recorded by both the courts based on materials on record, this court finds that no substantial question of law is involved in this case. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

¶38

16. Pending I.A., if any, is closed.

¶39

17. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX.

¶40

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶41

Dated: 16.12.2025 Uploaded on: 04/02/2026 Binit

Smt Long Devi v. Smt Lakhpati Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Long Devi v. Smt Lakhpati Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kedar Prasad Vs Churaman Das Bhadani

M/S.Tata Motors Ltd. Vs Union of India

Shyamal Kishore Roy Vs Dewakar Pd Singh

Bullu Devi And Ors. Vs Babulal Ram And Anr.

Uma Gadodia Vs Sri Gopal Kasera Alias Gopal Kasera

Ranjit Prasad Choudhary Vs the State of Jharkhand