Sudama Devi And Anr. Vs Soyeb Ansari And Ors.

¶1

2025:JHHC:26529

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

S.A. No. 433 of 2017

¶4

1(a). Sudama Devi W/o Late Kirani Singh, age about 67 years, R/o House No.36, Near Hanuman Mandir, Deoghar, P.O.-Jhalar, P.S.- Mohanpur, District- Deoghar, Jharkhand- 814120

¶5

1(b). Rohan Singh S/o Late Kirani Singh, age about 41 years, R/o House No.36, Near Hanuman Mandir, Deoghar, P.O.-Jhalar, P.S.- Mohanpur, District- Deoghar, Jharkhand- 814120

¶6

1(c). Pappu Singh S/o Late Kirani Singh, age about 34 years, R/o Vill- Deothar, House No.36, Jhalar Road, P.O.- Jhalar, P.S.Mohanpur, District- Deoghar, Jharkhand- 814120

¶7

1(d). Ranjit Singh, S/o Late Kirani Singh, age about 31 years, R/o Vill- Devthar, P.O.- Jhalar, P.S.- Mohanpur, District- Deoghar, Jharkhand-814120

¶8

Kirtan Singh S/o Late Fuko Singh, R/o Village- Deothar, P.O.Mohanpur, P.S.- Mohanpur & District- Deoghar

¶9

… … Plaintiffs/Appellants/Appellants

¶10

-Versus-

¶11

Soyeb Ansari S/o Late Manager Mian, Resident of VillageDeothar, P.O.-Mohanpur, P.S.-Mohanpur, Subdivision & DistrictDeoghar

¶12

Hanif Ansari Soyeb Ansari S/o Late Manager Mian, Resident of Village-Deothar, P.O.-Mohanpur, P.S.-Mohanpur, Subdivision & District-Deoghar

¶13

Makail Ansari, S/o Late Manager Mian, Resident of VillageDeothar, P.O.-Mohanpur, P.S.-Mohanpur, Subdivision & DistrictDeoghar

¶14

Halisan Bibi W/o Harun Mian, D/o Late Manager Mian, resident of Village- Valuwa, P.O., P.S.- Taljhari, District-Dumka

¶15

Alma Khatoon W/o-Kadir Mian, D/o Late Manager Mian, resident of Village-Dondiya, P.S.+ P.O.- Sarwan, District-Deoghar

¶16

Mamulan Bibi W/o Suleman Mian, D/o Late Manager Mian, resident of Village-Bagdabra, P.S.+P.O.- Sarath, Sub-DivisionMadhupur, District-Deoghar

¶17

Kamil Ansari S/o Late Asiran Bibi & Naushad Mian, resident of Village-Amba, P.O.-Hariharpur, P.S.- Taljhari, District-Dumka

¶18

Samil Ansari S/o Late Asiran Bibi & Naushad Mian, resident of Village-Amba, P.O.-Hariharpur, P.S.- Taljhari, District-Dumka

¶19

Subeda Khatoon, W/o Mahruddin Ansari, D/o Naushad Mian, resident of Village-Amba, P.O.-Hariharpur, P.S.- Taljhari, DistrictDumka

¶20

10.Jubeda Khatoon, W/o Late Taslim Ansari, D/o Late Asiran Bibi, resident of Village-Valuwa, P.O., P.S.-Taljhari, District-Dumka

¶21

1

¶22

2025:JHHC:26529

¶23

..... Defendants / Respondents 1st Parties / Respondent 1^st parties

¶24

11.Chandra Shekhar Prasad, S/o Late Narsingh Prasad Lal, resident of Bhaiyadih, Gidhanda, P.S+P.O. -Sarwan, Sub-Division & DistrictDeoghar

¶25

… Proforma Defendants / Respondents 2^nd Party / Respondent 2^nd Party

¶26

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶28

--For the Appellants : Mr. Prashant Pallav, Advocate : Ms. Shivani Jaluka, Advocate For the Respondents :

¶29

¶30

13 /01.09.2025 Heard the learned counsel for the appellants.

¶31

2. This second appeal has been filed against the judgement and decree dated 30.05.2017 (Decree signed on 08.01.2018) passed by the learned District Judge-II, Deoghar in Civil Appeal No.19 of 2013 whereby the learned 1^st appellate court has confirmed the judgement and decree dated 31.05.2013 (Decree signed on 17.06.2013) passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-VII, Deoghar in Title Suit No.80 of 2001. The title suit was dismissed.

¶32

3. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the suit was filed seeking a declaration that the Sale Deed No.793 of 1958 dated 18.04.1958 was void ab initio. He submitted that in Santhal Pargana, the properties are not saleable and if the jot of mulraiyat is to be sold, the entire mulraiyati interest must be sold at one go. The learned counsel submitted that this aspect of the matter has not been properly considered by the courts. He submitted that so far as the point of limitation is concerned, though the suit was filed after 44 years from the date of execution of the deed, but as soon as the fraud came to light, the suit was filed, and therefore, even this aspect of the matter has not been properly considered. He has referred to Section 17 of the Limitation Act. He has also relied upon the judgement passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2021) 15 SCC 300 (Rattan Singh and Ors. -Vs- Nirmal Gill and Ors.) Paragraph-81.

¶33

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, this Court finds that the suit was filed for declaration of Sale Deed No.793 of

¶34

2

¶35

2025:JHHC:26529

¶36

1958 executed in favour of the Defendant No.1 as null and void. The plaintiffs claimed that the suit property was not saleable and the mulraiyat has not transferred his raiyati right over the entire land and such right with respect to portion of mulraiyati property cannot be sold.

¶37

5. On the other hand, the case of the defendants was that the entire jot of mulraiyat was sold in connection with Jamabandi No.22 measuring total area of 14.50 acres by virtue of the sale deed and the Defendant No.1 is the sole owner of the mulraiyat right over J.B. No.22 as well as other rights by order dated 26.08.1961 passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner who accepted the recommendation of the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Deoghar in Revision Miscellaneous Case No.63 of 1959. Further case of the defendants was that the purchase of mulraiyat rights was lawful and it was recognized by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Deoghar. The Defendant No.1 has constructed a house over the land and he is in cultivating possession over the entire land and for the last 43 years, he is collecting rents of the mulraiyat village Devthar and his mulraiyat rights have become perfect by afflux of time. The defendants claimed that the suit instituted by the plaintiff has no force and it is fit to be dismissed.

¶38

6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed the following 06 issues for consideration:

¶39

(i) Whether the suit as framed is maintainable?

¶40

(ii) Whether the plaintiffs have got any cause of action for filing the suit?

¶41

(iii) Whether the suit is barred by the Limitation Act?

¶42

(iv) Whether Sale Deed No.793 of 1958 is a void and invalid document?

¶43

(v) Whether the Defendant No.1 Manager Mian has been declared as the mulraiyat on the basis of the said sale deed and he is in possession of the property described in the sale deed from the date of sale?

¶44

3

¶45

2025:JHHC:26529

¶46

(vi) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the reliefs sought for?

¶47

7. In course of trial, the plaintiffs examined 08 witnesses in support of their case. PW-1 is Bhairo Prasad, PW-2 is Katki Mandal, PW-3 is Shivnarayan Singh, PW-4 is Girja Mohli, PW-5 is Chando Singh, PW-6 is KurbanSingh, PW-7 is Nanki Singh and PW-8 is Kirani Singh who was the Plaintiff No.1.

¶48

8. The plaintiffs exhibited the certified copy of Sale Deed No.793 of 1958 dated 18.04.1958 as Exhibit-1, Certified copy of Khatiyan of J.B. No.22, Mouza- Devthar as Exhibit-2, Certified copy of Khatiyan of J.B. No.23, Mouza- Devthar as Exhibit-2/A.

¶49

9. The defendant examined 07 witnesses, DW-1 is Sukhdeo Singh, DW-2 is Rasool Mian, DW-3 is Manager Mian, DW-4 is Talu Mohli, DW-5 is Kati Singh, DW-6 is Banshidhar Rai and DW-7 is Soyeb Ansari.

¶50

10. The defendants exhibited the government land revenue receipts as Exhibits- A to A/20, Record of rights of mulraiyat of MauzaDevthar as Exhibit-B, C.C. of order dated 21.09.59 passed by Deputy Commissioner, Santhal Pargana, Dumka in R.M. Case No.42/58-59 as Exhibit-C, C.C. of order dated 10.06.61 passed by Sub-Divisional Officer, Deoghar in R.M. Case No.63/58-59 as Exhibit-C/1, C.C. of order passed by Sub-Divisional Officer, Deoghar in RM Case No.196/2009-10 as Exhibit-C/2, Original copy of Sale Deed No.793 of 1958 as Exhibit-D and C.C. of Khatiyan of J.B. No.22, MouzaDevthar as Exhibit-E.

¶51

11. The learned trial court considered the materials on record and observed that the main point, which has been raised by the plaintiffs was that there has been violation of the provisions of Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act and that the description of the property in the sale deed differs from the jot of the mulraiyat and that the property in jamabandi no.22 was non-transferable and consequently, the sale was hit by the provisions of Section 20 of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act.

¶52

12. The learned trial court referred to the provisions of Section 20 of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act which creates restriction in

¶53

4

¶54

2025:JHHC:26529

¶55

transfer of land, but held that the disputed property is situated in village Devthar bearing Jamabandi No.22 in which raiyati purcha was also issued vide Exhibit-2 and Exhibit-E. Upon perusal of which, it reveals that the property was not of jamamabdi raiyat, rather the property was recorded as mulraiyat ka jot and mulraiyat ka jot is transferrable by virtue of Section 10 of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act, 1949.

¶56

13. The learned court also recorded that the entire area of Jamabandi No.22 was 14.50 acres which was purchased by the Defendant No.1 and the learned trial court rejected the contention of the plaintiffs that the property was not transferrable. The other objections of the plaintiffs with respect to the transfer of the land was also rejected and has also recorded by referring to the materials on record that there were some clerical errors. The learned court has recorded that the entire area of jot was 14.50 acres and Jamabandi No.22 had 14.50 acres which was sold by virtue of the sale deed. The defendants were in possession of the property right from 1958.

¶57

14. The learned trial further recorded that after purchase of the land, the property was recorded in the office of Sub-Divisional Officer in the name of the defendants and the property was duly transferred in his name. It was also recorded that an objection was also raised, but the objection was rejected and that order was never challenged. Consequently, Defendant No.1 was declared as mulraiyat. The learned court also recorded that the evidence of the plaintiffs reveals that Defendant No.1 being mulraiyat started collecting rents from other raiyats and started depositing the rent with the State.

¶58

15. The learned trial court also recorded that pursuant to the Sale Deed No.793 of 1958, the Defendant No.1 Manager Mian purchased the mulraiyat as per law and came in possession of the same and his name was duly recorded in the record of the State. The court recorded that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that the sale deed was null and void and decided the Issue Nos.4 and 5 against the plaintiffs and in favour of the Defendant No.1

¶59

5

¶60

2025:JHHC:26529

¶61

16. So far as the point of limitation is concerned, the learned trial court recorded that the suit was filed in the year 2001 and although the period of limitation is 3 years, the plea of plaintiffs that they came to know about the deed when there was an attempt to demolish certain portion of temple, but this plea was also rejected as the plaintiffs themselves had deposed that they have been depositing rent in connection with the property and that they have been depositing rent with Defendant No.1. The learned trial court ultimately held that the suit was hopelessly barred by limitation and rejected the plea that the plaintiffs came to know about the deed within the period of limitation and decided the Issue No.3 against the plaintiffs.

¶62

17. The learned trial court also decided the Issue Nos.1, 2 and 6 against the plaintiffs and held that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their case and therefore, they have no cause of action for the suit, the suit as framed is not maintainable and they are not entitled for any relief.

¶63

18. The learned 1^st appellate court framed the following points of determination:

¶64

(i) Whether the Sale Deed No.793 of 1958 dated 18.04.1958 is void ab-initio because the mandatory provisions of law has not been followed in execution of the said sale deed as few plots of J.B. No.22 has not been transferred in favour of Defendant No.1 by the mulraiyat and a plot which was not the land of mulraiyat has been mentioned in the sale deed?

¶65

(ii) Whether the Sale Deed No.793 of 1958 dated 18.04.1958 became absolute by the afflux of time and the present suit is barred by law of limitation?

¶66

19. The learned 1^st appellate court considered the materials on record and recorded its findings as under:

¶67

“ 13. In the present case, the main contention of the appellant/ plaintiff is that entire plots of J.B. No.22 have not been transferred in one traction in favour of Defendant No.1 so this transaction is void ab-intio and illegal. The arguments of learned defence counsel is based on the contention made in the

¶68

6

¶69

2025:JHHC:26529

¶70

report of Gantzer Survey Settlement Operation. Obviously, it is not a law, it is a report of survey settlement Officer which is being used in Santhal Pargana as a guidelines because here in santhal pargana, majority of land is unsurveyed land. If Mr. Gantzer has opined in his report that entire mulraiyati interest must be transferred in one transaction to avoid the future complication and multiplicity of litigations, but for the sake of argument, it is supposed that in any transaction, the entire mulraiyati lands and interest has not been transferred, it doesn't mean that the said documents will be void ab-intio. For a moment, it can be said that this transaction is improper because it has not followed the guidelines given in Gantzer survey settlement report, but I sharply differ with the argument of learned counsel for appellant that the guideline as given by Mr. Gantzer in his survey settlement report has not been followed so the entire sale deed will be void ab-intio. This mistake can be said improper, but it is not illegal. So, the argument of learned counsel for the appellants that because in one transaction, the entire mulraiyati land of then mulraiyat has not been transferred in favour of Defendant No.1, so the sale deed in transaction is vold ab-intio and illegal, has got no force and I sharply differ with this argument and I repeal it. As the Issue No.1 for determination in this appeal is decided.

¶71

14. Now, the second issue for determination in this case is that sale deed in transaction was executed in the year 1958 dated 18.04.1958 and the present suit has been filed on 10.01.2002 after a lapse of about 44 years and I find substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent/defendant that the suit as instituted by the plaintiff was time barred and on this ground alone the suit must be dismissed.”

¶72

20. The learned 1^st appellate court recorded that the judgment and decree passed by the trial court has no infirmity and confirmed the same and consequently, dismissed the appeal.

¶73

7

¶74

2025:JHHC:26529

¶75

21. After having gone through the impugned judgements, this Court finds that both the courts have considered the case on merit as well as on the point of limitation and have recorded concurrent findings. This Court finds no perversity in the findings recorded by the learned courts for reappreciation of evidences. This Court finds no substantial question of law calling for any violation and accordingly, this second appeal is hereby dismissed.

¶76

22. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX/email.

¶77

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶78

Saurav/

¶79

8

Sudama Devi And Anr. v. Soyeb Ansari And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudama Devi And Anr. v. Soyeb Ansari And Ors.

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

Mahendra Thakur Vs Jageshwar Mahto

Tripurari Sharan Vs Shri Pradip Kumar Gupta the Deputy General Manager, Spc (E), Bokaro Steel Plant Limited

Pankaj Swayam Sahayata Samuh through Its President Smt. Lalita Devi Vs State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Deptt of Food

Md Rustam Ansari And Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar Now Jharkhand Represented By Dy Commissioner And Ors.

Sudhir Kumar Sarkar Vs Anil Kumar Sarkar And Ors.

Shankar Prasad Yadav Vs Meena Devi