Anirudh Pathak Vs Quraisha Bibi And Ors. — Jharkhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Anirudh Pathak Vs Quraisha Bibi And Ors. — Jharkhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None. Both the second appeal and Cross Objection No.01 of 2012 are dismissed; the judgments and decrees of the courts below dismissing the plaintiff's suit stand undisturbed.

Issue for consideration

Substantial Question of Law (i) framed for the appellant: whether the courts below gravely erred in deciding trial Issue No.VII against the plaintiff by relying upon the Amendment Act 25 of 1947, where the plaintiff claimed raiyati rights on the basis of reclamation and conversion into Korkar pleaded as occurring during 1945-46. +2 more

Court's answer

On the first substantial question of law, apart from revenue-record entries, issuance of rent receipts and an 'illegal possession' entry in the not-yet-final revisional survey record of rights, there is nothing else to substantiate any raiyati right acquired by the plaintiff over Plot No.247; the plaintiff failed to prove under what authority and when his jamabandi was opened, and it was not shown when the Government settled the suit land to him.

Ratio / Principle

Mere issuance of a rent receipt — however illegally obtained by the appellant in this case — cannot be a document of title.

Key takeaways

The plea that the plaintiff's father converted the land into Korkar was taken for the first time before the learned Appellate Court, with no such pleading in the plaint and no witness other than the plaintiff himself proving possession in 1945-46; read with the amendment of Section 64, C.N.T. Act (with effect from 05.05.1948 requiring prior Deputy Commissioner permission to convert land into Korkar) and the plaintiff's complete failure to prove any landlord's consent/permission, the concurrent rejection of the reclamation/korkar claim was correct.ratio¶124
The first substantial question of law was rightly decided by the first Appellate Court on the evidence adduced by the plaintiff/appellant and requires no interference.ratio¶128

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi (Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.; C.A.V. 02.07.2025, pronounced 09.07.2025) dismissed Second Appeal No.35 of 2011 and Cross Objection No.01 of 2012, arising from Title Suit No.51 of 2003 (Munsiff, Garhwa) and Title Appeal No.20 of 2008 (Addl. District Judge, F.T.C.-I, Garhwa), upholding the concurrent finding that the suit land (Plot No.247 — 23 decimals, under Khata No.92, Village Bakoiya, Dist. Garhwa) is Gair Mazarua malik land vested in the State after abolition of zamindari and belongs to neither litigant. The appellant-plaintiff's claim of raiyati right through reclamation (1945-46) and conversion into korkar failed: the authority and date of his jamabandi were unproved; mere rent receipts are not documents of title; the korkar plea surfaced for the first time in appeal without a matching plaint pleading; and, Section 64 C.N.T. Act having been amended (effective 05.05.1948) to require prior Deputy Commissioner permission for korkar conversion, no consent or permission was proved. The presumed benefit of section 84(3), Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act was refused because the revisional survey record of rights is not yet final. The defendants' reliance on the 11.11.1940 customary parwana granted by the Manager, Wards & Encumbered Estate of Nagar Untari estate availed nothing absent any post-vesting demand or rent receipt; adjudicating their title plea within Issue No.9 was held necessary and proper since they had themselves pleaded title and possession.

Issues for consideration

3 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Substantial Question of Law (i) framed for the appellant: whether the courts below gravely erred in deciding trial Issue No.VII against the plaintiff by relying upon the Amendment Act 25 of 1947, where the plaintiff claimed raiyati rights on the basis of reclamation and conversion into Korkar pleaded as occurring during 1945-46.¶103
The court held
On the first substantial question of law, apart from revenue-record entries, issuance of rent receipts and an 'illegal possession' entry in the not-yet-final revisional survey record of rights, there is nothing else to substantiate any raiyati right acquired by the plaintiff over Plot No.247; the plaintiff failed to prove under what authority and when his jamabandi was opened, and it was not shown when the Government settled the suit land to him.ratio¶120
2.
Substantial Question of Law (ii) framed for the appellant: whether the courts below erred in not placing reliance on the appellant's possessory title — he being in possession much prior to 1944 and a recorded raiyat — under the presumption provided by section 84 sub-section (3) of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act.¶61
The court held
The second substantial question of law on possessory title is not tenable: the revisional survey record of rights has not yet become final and there is no presumption of such possession culminating into title; on that basis alone the appellant's fundamental relief of declaration of title was rightly denied by both courts below.ratio¶129
3.
Substantial Question of Law admitted on the cross-objection: whether the finding that the ex-landlord manager of the Wards and Encumbered Estate, then managing Nagar Untari estate, settled the suit land to Shekhawat Khan and Shamsher Khan by granting customary parwana on 11.11.1940 was wrongly decided on the ground that the suit land is Government land.¶64
The court held
The cross-objection fails: the defendants produced only pre-vesting exhibits (settlement customary parwana Ext.A, unregistered customary parwana Ext.A/1 and ex-landlord rent receipts Ext.B series) with no demand opened and no rent receipt issued in their favour after vesting of zamindari; hence the courts below rightly held that the suit land belongs neither to the plaintiff nor to the defendants — it is Government land and no party can claim right, title and interest in it.ratio¶134