Dismissed¶71

Mohan Mahto And Ors. v. Parani Devi And Ors.

Jharkhand HC2 Sept 2025SA/508/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

S.A. No. 508 of 2017, High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, decided 02.09.2025 by Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J. (neutral citation 2025:JHHC:26670). Keywords: second appeal; substantial question of law; concurrent findings; perversity; hukumnama/hukumnama settlement; gairmjurwa/gairmazaruwa land; Khata No. 195; plot nos. 1362-1364; occupancy raiyat; adverse possession; government rent receipts; Register-2; Bedakhli Case No.01/2000-01; Title Suit No. 24 of 1993; Eviction Suit No. 153 of 1960; Eviction Suit No. 1 of 2000-2001; vesting under Bihar Land Reforms Act; bar under Section 34 Specific Relief Act; declaration of title; permanent injunction; appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted to the appellants; the second appeal was dismissed and the pending interlocutory application, if any, was dismissed as not pressed.

Mohan Mahto And Ors. Vs Parani Devi And Ors. — Specific Performance | Jharkhand HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief granted to the appellants; the second appeal was dismissed and the pending interlocutory application, if any, was dismissed as not pressed.

¶71

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaintiffs have got title and possession over the suit land (trial court Issue No. V, treated as a main issue). +3 more

¶41

Ratio / Principle

Both courts below scrutinised the materials and came to a definite concurrent finding that the defendants proved right, title and interest over the suit property while the plaintiffs miserably failed to prove their right, title, interest and possession; no perversity in appreciation of evidence was pointed out.

¶69

Key takeaways

No illegality was found in the findings of the first appellate court with respect to each point of determination while upholding the judgment of the learned trial court.ratio¶70
No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, is involved in the case; the second appeal therefore lacks merit and is dismissed.ratio¶70

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Second appeal dismissed. The plaintiffs/appellants had sued for declaration of title, confirmation/recovery of possession and permanent injunction over plot nos. 1362, 1363 and 1364 of Khata No. 195 (8.10 acres), Village Kanchanpur, P.S. Katkamsandi, Hazaribagh, claiming under a hukumnama allegedly executed in Samwat 1983 by co-sharer landlords Dhiran and Chohan Mahto in favour of Lakhi Mahto, and alternatively by adverse possession, with recognition as tenants upon vesting under the Bihar Land Reforms Act. The trial court and the first appellate court concurrently found for the defendants, who traced title to hukumnamas in favour of Chulhan Mahto and Tetri Devi - previously upheld in Title Suit No. 24 of 1993 and Eviction Suit No. 153 of 1960, with possession delivered in Eviction Suit No. 1 of 2000-2001 - while the plaintiffs produced only four government rent receipts and no hukumnama. The High Court (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) held there was no perversity or illegality in the concurrent findings and that no question of law, much less a substantial question of law, arose; the appeal was dismissed and pending interlocutory applications were dismissed as not pressed.

¶1

2025:JHHC:26670

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

S. A. No. 508 of 2017

¶4

Mohan Mahto

¶5

Deo Narain Mahto

¶6

Tek Narain Mahto All son of Late Lalo Mahto, residents of Village Kanchanpur, P.O. Lupung, P.S. Katkamsandi, District-Hazaribagh.

¶7

… … Plaintiffs/Appellants/Appellants

¶8

Versus

¶9

Parani Devi, wife of Sodar Mahto, daughter of Late Chulhan Mahto, resident of Village Nawatanr, P.O. Shila, P.S. Simaria, District Chatra.

¶10

Munia, wife of Punit Mahto, daughter of Late Chulhan Mahto, resident of village Keredari, P.O. & P.S. Keredari, District Hazaribagh.

¶11

Doman Mahto

¶12

Ganesh Mahto

¶13

Remeshwar Mahto

¶14

Umesh Mahto Respondent Nos. 3 to 6 are sons of Late Chulhan Mahto. Respondent Nos. 3 to 6 are residents of Village Kachanpur, P.O. Lupung, P.S. Katkamsandi, District-Hazaribagh

¶15

State of Jharkhand, through the Deputy Commissioner, P.O + P.S. + District- Hazaribagh

¶16

Anchal Adhikari, Katkamsandi, P.O. & P.S. Katkamsandi, DistrictHazaribagh.

¶17

… … Defendants/Respondents/Respondents

¶18

¶19

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶20

¶21

For the Appellants : Mr. Manjul Prasad, Senior Advocate : Ms. Sarita Gupta, Advocate : Mr. Abhijit Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Akhauri Prakhar Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Aman Kedia, Advocate For the Respondents : None

¶22

¶23

08 /02.09.2025

¶24

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants.

¶25

2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 11.08.2017 (decree signed on 24.08.2017) passed by the learned District Judge-XII, Hazaribagh in Title Appeal No. 47 of 2012 affirming the judgment dated 06.07.2012 (decree signed on

¶26

¶27

2025:JHHC:26670

¶28

18.07.2012) in Title Suit No. 132 of 2001 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-IV, Hazaribagh.

¶29

3. The suit was dismissed and the judgment of the learned trial court was upheld by the learned 1^st appellate court. Consequently, the plaintiffs are the appellants before this Court. 4. Learned Senior counsel for the appellants has submitted that the learned courts have committed error of law while dismissing the suit and have not properly considered the materials on record and therefore, the substantial question of law be framed and appeal be admitted and decided.

¶30

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, this Court find that the suit was filed by the plaintiffs claiming declaration of title and conformation of possession over the suit land of plot Nos. 1362, 1363 and 1364 appertaining to Khata No. 195 for an area of 8.10 acres situated in Village-Kanchanpur, P.S. Katkamsandi, Hazaribagh described in Schedule-A of the plaint. The plaintiffs also sought recovery of possession if found dispossessed and also a decree for permanent injunction.

¶31

6. The specific case of the plaintiffs was that suit the property was recorded in Garimazaruwa Khas under Khewat No. 26 and was recorded as “Salimat Malikan” out of which Khewat No. 4/1 was recorded in the name of Dhiran Mahto, Jaggu Mahto and Nanhu Mahto 8 pai both having equal shares and Khewat No.4/2 was in the name of Chohan Mahto 1 anna in the cadastral survey khatiyan. It was further case of the plaintiffs that Dhiran and Chohan were co-sharer landlords settled in suit land by way of Hukumnana on 15^th Baisakh Sambat 1983 Sal in favour of Lakhi Mahto, S/O: Sodhi Mahto and Lalo Mahto, S/O: Bodhi Mahto. The settles were already in possession with prior permission of ex-landlord and reclaimed the land and paid rent to the ex-landlord. It was also their case that they have acquired the title by way of adverse possession. It was their further case that upon vesting under Bihar Land Reforms Act, the settles were recognized as tenants and rent receipts were granted in their names. It

¶32

¶33

2025:JHHC:26670

¶34

was the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs ultimately claimed property on the basis of aforesaid hukumnama and also claimed adverse possession.

¶35

7. On the other hand, the defendants contested the suit and asserted that their father and mother got the land by virtue of Hukumnama in the year Sambat 1984 and 1995 and since then they are in possession of the property and the settlement was made by the ex-landlord of the village. The defendants denied the averments of the plaintiffs and contended that defendant Nos.1 and 2 both took settlement of plot Nos. 1362, 1363 and 1364 in sambat year 1984 and 1995 from the rightful owner, namely, Nanhu Mahto who had right, title, interest and possession over the land of Khata No.195. They also asserted that the demand was opened in their names and there were paying rent to the State.

¶36

8. The learned trial court has framed the following issues for consideration:

¶37

“I. Is the suit maintainable?

¶38

II. Have the plaintiffs valid cause of action?

¶39

III. Is the suit barred by Limitation?

¶40

IV. Is the suit barred by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act?

¶41

V. Whether the plaintiffs have got title and possession over the suit land?

¶42

VI. Are the plaintiffs entitled for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from causing any interference into the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs?”

¶43

9. Issue No. (V) and (VI) were main issues which were considered by the learned trial court vide paragraph 5 onwards. The learned trial court considered all the material documentary and oral evidences of the parties including the certified copy of Bedakhli Case No.01/200001 and other related documents and held that the defendants were in possession of the suit property. The learned trial court also recorded that the defendants has also filed hukumnama and other documents in support of their case but, the plaintiffs had not filed any hukumnana

¶44

¶45

2025:JHHC:26670

¶46

on the basis of which the plaintiffs claimed right, title and interest over the suit property.

¶47

10. This Court finds that the learned trial court after considering all the materials on record came to the conclusion that the defendant’s ancestors were the actual settlees of the suit land and they were having the occupancy raiyat over the suit land since the day of settlement and held that the plaintiffs hopelessly failed to establish their title and possession over the suit land and held that the plaintiffs were not the settlee of the suit land at any point of time and had no title and possession with respect to the suit land.

¶48

11. This Court finds that learned 1^st appellate court has also considered the materials on record after framing the following points for determination:-

¶49

“A. Whether the judgment and decree dated 06.07.2012 passed by the learned trial court is in accordance with the principles of law and fact or does it require interference?

¶50

B. Was the disputed property received by the plaintiff’s ancestor Lakhi Mahato through settlement on the basis of which the plaintiffs are in possession of the disputed property and do the plaintiffs have ownership rights over the disputed property?

¶51

C. Whether the disputed property was settled by the former landlord in the name of Chulhan Mahato and Tetri Devi and do the defendants have title, right and interest over the disputed property?

¶52

D. Are the plaintiffs/appellants entitled to receive the relief sought?”

¶53

12. The learned 1^st appellate court considered point no. B and C together and came to concurrent findings and decided the same against the plaintiffs/appellants. The learned 1^st appellate court has recorded in paragraph 16 of the judgment that it is an admitted fact between the parties that property is of khata no. 195 which is recorded as gairmjurwa in the record of rights. The plaintiffs claimed that the disputed property was settled by ex-zamindar namely Dhiren Mahto and Chohan Mahto in favour of Lakhi Mahto in Samwat 1983 and on the other hand the case of the defendants was that the zamindar Nanhak

¶54

¶55

2025:JHHC:26670

¶56

Mahto had settled the disputed land in favour of Chulhan Mahto and Tetri Devi in Sambat 1984 and 1991.

¶57

13. The learned 1^st appellate court has recorded in paragraph 20 of the judgment that in this case both the parties are claiming the property through Hukumnana alleged to have been issued by the exlandlord. The documents produced by the defendants revealed that before filing the present case, a Title Suit No.24 of 1993 (Chulhan Mahto Vs. Dasrath Bhuiyan and Others) was filed and the Hukumnana issued in favour of Chulhan Mahto was found to be corrected and the title and possession of Chulhan Mahto was declared. In the present case, Chulhan Mahto is defendant No.1 and the judgment of Title Suit No. 24 of 1993 revealed that right, title and interest with respect to Khata No. 195 Plot No. 1364 area 4.87 acres, Plot No. 1363 area 0.08 acres was declared in favour of Chulhan Mahto. The learned 1^st appellate court thereafter recorded that apart from the aforesaid title suit, the Forest Department had also filed one Eviction Suit No.153 of 1960 (Chulhan Mahto and Tetri Devi vs. D.F.O, Hazaribagh) and in that proceeding also the Hukumnama of Chulhan Mahto was held to be valid and the case was decided in favour of Chulhan Mahto.

¶58

14. Similarly, another Eviction Suit No.1 of 2000-2001 was initiated by the Circle Officer, Katkamsandi in which Rameshwar Mahto, S/O: Chulhan Mahto was given possession of Khata No. 195 Plot No. 1364, 1363 and 1362 total area 7.50 acres and even the witnesses have deposed that the disputed property was in possession of the defendants. The learned 1^st appellate court ultimately concluded that the documents produced by the defendants was proved and prior to the present case there has been numerous proceedings wherein the Hukumnama of Chulhan Mahto and Tetri Devi was produced, which was found to be valid and the right and title was declared.

¶59

15. The learned 1^st appellate court thereafter referred to the documents produced by the plaintiffs and it was observed that Hukumnana and Zamindari rent receipts were essential documents,

¶60

¶61

2025:JHHC:26670

¶62

but in support of this no document was produced by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs had only produced four government rent receipts, but the copy of Register-2 has not been produced and no order of the competent authority was produced regarding issuance of rent receipts.

¶63

16. The learned 1^st appellate court further recorded that the plaintiffs were required to prove that the Zamindar in connection with the property which was settled were Dhiren Mahto and Chohan Mahto as claimed by them, but the plaintiffs did not produce any documents to prove that the disputed land was the property of Ex-zamindar Dhiren Mahto and Chohan Mahto. The learned 1^st appellate court also recorded that the disputed plot is a part of Khata No. 195 which is a huge plot and it was for the plaintiffs to prove that the property as claimed was given to them by way of settlement and was a part of the land allocated to the Zamindar as claimed by them, but the plaintiffs completely failed to prove this fact by way of cogent evidence.

¶64

17. The learned 1^st appellate court also recorded that the plaintiffs have neither produced the hukumnama before the court nor it was produced before any other court in any of the proceedings. The plaintiffs have not given any cogent evidence to support the Hukumnama. The learned 1^st appellate court recorded that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that the disputed property was the property of Dhiren Mahto and Chohan Mahto who had the right to create Bandobasti and the plaintiffs have failed to prove that the disputed property was settled in favour of Lakhi Mahto. The learned court further observed that the plaintiffs have not produced any document to show that after abolition of zamindari the plaintiffs were declared as a raiyat and any order of competent authority was passed to issue rent receipt in favour of the plaintiffs nor any such document was produced to prove their case.

¶65

18. The court ultimately recorded that the defendants has proved that the property was allocated to the defendants through Hukumnama and their hukumnama was found to be valid to declare his right, title and interest over the suit property. The learned 1^st appellate court has

¶66

¶67

2025:JHHC:26670

¶68

recorded that the plaintiffs has totally failed to prove their case through cogent evidence and ultimately held that the plaintiffs has failed to prove that they have right, title and interest in connection with the suit property and decided the issue Nos. B and C against the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendants. The learned 1^st appellate court held that there is settlement in favour of Chulhan Mahto and Tetri Devi by the ex-zamindar and therefore, the plaintiffs had no right, title and interest over the suit land.

¶69

19. This Court finds that both the courts have scrutinized the materials on record and came to a definite finding that the defendants have been able to prove the right, title and interest with respect to the suit property and the plaintiffs have miserably failed to prove their right, title, interest and possession. Both the courts have considered the materials on record, and no perversity in the matter of appreciation of evidence by both the courts as such has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants.

¶70

20. This Court finds no illegality in the findings of the learned 1^st appellate court with respect to each point of determination while upholding the judgment of the learned trial court. This Court is of the considered view that no question of law, much less and any substantial question of law, is involved in this case.

¶71

21. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in this 2^nd appeal which is hereby dismissed.

¶72

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

¶73

23. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the concerned courts through “Fax/e-mail”.

¶74

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶75

Rakesh/-

¶76