Dismissed¶50

Nandlal Singh v. Kisun Mahto

Jharkhand HC12 Feb 2025SA/63/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi; Second Appeal No. 63 of 2021; decided 12.02.2025; Judge Anubha Rawat Choudhary; dismissed for absence of substantial question of law; concurrent findings upheld; no re-appreciation of evidence absent perversity; defendant's 1920-21 auction-purchase claim rejected; certified copy of sale register, Auction Case No. 176 of 1920 (Exhibit-A); Section 79 Evidence Act presumption of genuineness of certified copies; sale certificate and delivery of possession lacking; khatiyan of Khata No. 52; rent receipts; LRDC Misc. Case No. 16/2009-10; declaration of title and possession; cancellation of jamabandi; descendant of recorded tenant; Nandlal Singh v. Kishun Mahto; Chatra.

What did the court decide?

Second Appeal dismissed; no relief to the appellant-defendant; the concurrent findings of the courts below in favour of the plaintiff stand.

Nandlal Singh Vs Kisun Mahto — Jharkhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Second Appeal dismissed; no relief to the appellant-defendant; the concurrent findings of the courts below in favour of the plaintiff stand.

¶50

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaintiff has title over the suit land? +4 more

¶21

Court's answer

Both the learned courts below scrutinized the materials on record and declared right, title, interest and possession in favour of the plaintiff, rejecting the defendant's claim.

¶47

Ratio / Principle

The plaintiff was held by both the courts below to be the descendant of the recorded tenant.

¶47

Key takeaways

After discussion of all the materials on record, both oral and documentary, the suit stood decreed in favour of the plaintiff and the defendant's claim (including the claim of purchase through the 1920-21 auction) was rejected.ratio¶42
There is no scope for re-appreciating the evidence on record and coming to a different finding in second appeal in the absence of any perversity in the appreciation of evidence, and the appellant's counsel could not point out any such perversity.ratio¶48
No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises for consideration by this court in this second appeal.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Second Appeal dismissed — no substantial question of law. Concurrent findings of the trial court (Title Suit No. 25/2012, Civil Judge (Sr. Division) II, Chatra) and the first appellate court (Civil Appeal No. 20 of 2018, District Judge VI, Chatra), declaring right, title, interest and possession in favour of the plaintiff, were left undisturbed. The defendant's claim that his ancestors acquired the suit land (0.85 acres, Cadastral Plot Nos. 664, 687 and 770, Khata No. 52, village Lemh, Thana No. 292, Dist. Chatra) through an auction of 1920-21, evidenced only by a certified copy of the sale register in Auction Case No. 176 of 1920 (Exhibit-A), was found unsubstantiated: the courts below held that mere production of a certified copy (despite the presumption of genuineness under Section 79 of the Evidence Act) is not bona fide proof of title unless supported by a sale certificate and delivery of possession, and the register disclosed no area, boundary, or the why/when/how of the auction. The plaintiff was held to be the descendant of the recorded tenant (Gopal Koeri line, through Bandhani Devi), supported by the khatiyan and the 1980 sale deeds executed by Puniya Devi. The High Court declined to re-appreciate the evidence in the absence of perversity and dismissed the appeal for want of any substantial question of law.

¶1

2025:JHHC:11645

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

Second Appeal No. 63 of 2021

¶4

Nandlal Singh, son of late Sadafal Singh, r/o. village Lemh, P.O. Kamta, P.S. Sadar, Dist. Chatra.

¶5

……… Defendant/Appellant/Appellant -Versus-

¶6

Kishun Mahto, son of late Sohar Mahto, r/o. village Lemh, P.O. Kamta, P.S. Sadar, Dist. Chatra.

¶7

……… Plaintiff/ Respondent/Respondent

¶8

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶10

¶11

For the Appellant : Mr. Vijay Kumar Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Satish Kumar, Advocate

¶12

¶13

12/ 12.02.2025 Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶14

2. This appeal has been filed by the defendant/appellant against the judgment dated 24^th March 2021 and decree dated 25^th April 2021 passed by the learned District Judge VI Chatra dismissing Civil Appeal No. 20 of 2018, confirming the judgment and decree dated 31^st May 2018 (decree sealed and signed on 14^th June 2018) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) II, Chatra in Title Suit No. 25/2012.

¶15

3. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that though there are concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts but both the Courts have not properly considered the claim of the defendant and has decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. Learned counsel has submitted that entire case of the defendant rested on the auction which was conducted way back in the year 1920-21 in connection with which the defendant had produced certified copies of Auction Case No. 176 of 1920. Learned counsel has submitted that the certified copies having been produced and proved, there was no occasion to disbelieve the same and therefore, the claim of the defendants on the basis of auction sale was wrongly discarded by the learned Courts.

¶16

4. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, this Court finds that the plaintiff had filed the suit seeking a declaration of title and possession on the suit land i.e. 0.85 acres of land of Cadastral Plot Nos. 664, 687 and 770 in Khata No. 52 situated at village Lemh, P.S. Sadar, Dist. Chatra and Thana No. 292, described in Schedule-B/1 and also to declare and put the plaintiff in possession over the suit land if the

¶17

2025:JHHC:11645

¶18

plaintiff is dispossessed during the pendency of the case. A prayer was made for declaration that the defendants do not have any right, title and interest over the suit land on basis of fake and forged documents and also for cancellation of the jamabandi in the name of defendants created on the basis of forged and fabricated document. The plaintiff claimed to be the descendant of the recorded tenant and in support of the same, he had filed khatiyan and also other documents.

¶19

5. So far as the defendant is concerned, their claim was based on purchase through auction way back in the year 1921 in support of which they had produced Exhibit-A which was the certified copy of Auction Case No. 176 of 1920.

¶20

6. The learned trial court framed as many as 12 issues including the following issues being issue nos. 8 to 11 which are quoted as under: -

¶21

“8. Whether plaintiff has title over suit land?

¶22

9. Whether defendant have right, title, interest and possession over suit land?

¶23

10. Whether the plaintiff is legal heirs and successors of the Bandhani Devi and Sohar Mahto?

¶24

11. Whether suit land put an auction in the year 1920-21 and purchased by defendant’s ancestors?”

¶25

7. This Court finds that the learned Trial Court has duly considered the claim of the defendant with respect to Exhibit-A in paragraphs-15 and 22 of the judgment and held that the claim of the defendant on the basis of auction in the year 1920-21 was not substantiated. Paragraphs15 and 22 of the judgment passed by learned Trial Court reads as under:

¶26

“15. The defendant has filed and relied on three documents in support of his claim and in this respect Exhibit-A is the certified copy of auction case No 176/1920 title as Manager R.W.E. Vs. Gopal Koeri and others in this exhibit at the first instance a figure 54 has been written and there is nothing indicating this purpose and thereafter date 25.01 1921 has also been written thereafter the title has been written as Manager RWE Vs. Gopal Koeri and others and thereafter the date 20 11 1920 has been mentioned and in the last raiyal land in village Lemh, Thana No. 292 under Khata No. 51 and 52 total area 2.41 acre have been mentioned and on its second page DH Bhikho Singh of Lemh Thana Chatra has also been written in the paper and it does not disclose

¶27

¶28

2025:JHHC:11645

¶29

any meaningful things. It also does not contain the nature and detail of any land. It also does not contain whether any auction has taken place and if so what was the mode and manner and in this respect this document is silent and it can be said that the same does not disclose any right, title, interest either in favour or against any one. Exhibit-B is the order of LRDC, Chatra in Misc. Case No 16/2009-10 in which the issuance of receipt in favour of first party ie of the plaintiff has been allowed in Khata No. 33 whereas the issuance of rent receipt in Khata No 52 has been allowed in favour of the second party ie the defendant and the party had been directed to approach the competent court for tille over the land. This order also contains that the ancestor of the defendant had got the land in question on the basis of Hukumnama but it is crystal clear that no any Hukumnama or the detail of any auction has been filed by the defendant. Exhibit-C to C/1 is two rent receipts which had been issued in respect of Khata No. 51 and 52 in the name of one Muni Kumari wife of Sadafal Singh. The pleading of the defendant is in respect of Sadafal Singh and not in respect of any Muni Kumari hence this document is not in consistent with the pleading of the defendant. 22.All the witnesses examined by the plaintiff have categorically stated and supported that the plaintiff is the son of Bandhani Devi who is the daughter of Barho Mahto the legal heirs of recorded tenant in respect of the land in Khata No 52 at village Lemh and admittedly there is no documentary evidence in this respect from either side but even then DW1 has categorically accepted this fact and circumstances in his evidence and he accepted in Para No. 17, 18, 19 and 20 that Kisun Mahto lives in village Lemh and he has been cultivating his own land. D.W. 2 has also very specifically admitted in Para No. 17 of his evidence that he knows Kisun Mahot who is the grand son of Gopal Mahto who was having two daughers Punia Devi and Bandhani Devi and Puniya Devi has shifted to her in-laws house after selling the share after her marriage. D.W. 3 who is an old witness aged about 70 years has categorically stated that daughter of Barho Mahto namely Puniya Devi had gone some where after selling of her property and he accordingly supported that the plaintiff has been staying at village Lemh. D.W. 4 aged about 78 years is very categorically stated in Para No. 18 that the plaintiff is the maternal grand son of Gopal Koeri who is the recorded raiyat and Barho Mahto-is son of Gopal Koen was having two daughters Puniya Devi and Bandhani Devi but Puniya Devi had sold the land of her share and in Para No. 21 he stated that Kisun Mahto has been in possession over the land of his father. Rest witnesses examined by the defendant have also not denied the fact that Gopal Koeri is the recorded tenant and his son Barho Mahto was having two

¶30

¶31

2025:JHHC:11645

¶32

daughters and this plaintiff is the son of his daughter Bandhani Devi whereas his second daughter Puniya Devi had sold the land of her share and in this respect Exhibit 3, 3/1, 3/b also proved that the said Puniya Devi had sold and transferred her land through these three sale deeds and hence it has become clear that the plaintiff is the legal heirs and successor of Bandhani Devi and Sohar Mahto So far as the auction in the year 1920-21 is concerned in this respect the defendant has not filed any document Exhibit-A which is nothing but the certified copy in auction case No. 176/1920 title as Manager R.W.E VS Gopal Koeri and others but it does not disclose as to why when and how the land had been put en auction and how the ancestor of the defendant had purchased it because said Puniya Devi had sold the land in Khata No. 52 in the year 1980 through three sale deeds exhibited as Exhibit-3 to 3/b and Exhibit-A does not disclose any area or boundary of the land in which the auction was held hence this document has not at all supported the claim of the defendant and hence the claim of auction in the year 1920-21 is not at all substantiated also because there is not even oral evidence in this respect. In view of the facts, circumstances and discussion it has also become clear that the plaintiff has very right, title and interest over the suit land whereas the defendant has failed to prove his any right title, interest over the suit land hence issue No. VIII, IX, X and XI are therefore decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.”

¶33

8. The learned 1^st Appellate Court also scrutinized the material and in particular discussed Exhibit-A in paragraphs-13 and 16 as follows:

¶34

“13. The plaintiff in support of his case has filed documentary as-well-as oral evidence to prove his case Ext.-1 is Khatiyan of Khata No.-52, from the perusal of Khatiyan it is apparent that the land of Khata No.-52 was recorded in the name of Gopal Koeri and this fact is not in dispute. The plaintiff has denied any auction sale and submitted that he is in peaceful possession over the suit land. He has also filed sale dead No.- 1759, di. 31.03.1980 and sale deed No. 1757, dt. 31.03.1990 (Ext.-3 series). The purpose to produce Ext.-3 series is to show that the defendants ancestor and his sister has also recognized the title of plaintiffs Maushi Punia Devi so the story of auction sale is falsify by the documents of the defendant itself. He further submitted that Ext.-4 series also shows the continuous possession over the suit land by the plaintiff. The rent receipt of the plaintiff is of the year 1982 onward was issued by the State. The defendant has produced Ext.-A which is certified copy of auction sale case No.- 176/1920, dt. 25-01-1921 he has also filed the order sheet of LRDC passed in case No.- 16/2009-10 (Ext.-B). He also filed the

¶35

¶36

2025:JHHC:11645

¶37

rent receipt of the year 11-12-2008 and 01-07-2011 (Ext.-C series). From the perusal of Ext.-A it is apparent that land of Khata No. 51, 52 area 2.4 acre is mentioned and on second page name of Bhikho Singh at Lem, Thana- Chatra was mentioned as DH. The Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of defendant/appellant has submitted that the Ld. Court below has not consider this document and wrongly decreed the suit, he further submitted that due to mistake the sale deed was purchased from the Maushi of the plaintiff. He further submitted that from the date of auction sale the defendants ancestor are in peaceful possession. On the other hand the Learned Counsel for the plaintiff/respondent has submitted that the C.C. of auction sale is not a valid document as there are entry of two Khata i.e. Khata No.- 51 & 52 and area is mentioned as 2.41 acre whereas the area of plot No-51 is 2.30 acres and it is not possible that in an auction sale only a part of land was auctioned. He further submitted that manager Ramgarh ward was shown as the applicant of auction sale whereas from the perusal of Ext.1 it is apparent that Anant Singh was the ex-landlord of the said area. He further submitted that this document is a forged & fabricated document as neither sale certificate nor any order of delivery of possession was brought on record. He further submitted that the rent receipt filed by the defendant is of the year 2007-08 and 2011-12.

¶38

16. The second point for determination is related to the auction sale of the property as claimed by the defendant. The detailed discussion has been made by me on a forgoing paragraphs and the same is not required to reiterate here. In support of his claim the defendant has filed Ext.-A which is certified copy of sale register and from the perusal of said sale register it is apparent that two Khata No - 51 & 52 was given and no boundary has been mentioned in the said sale register. Although there is presumption of genuineness of any certified copy issued by any public servant as provided by section-79 of the Evidence Act, but merely production of sale register is not a bonafide proof of title rather it must be supported by the other documents such as sale certificate and delivery of possession, the defendant except Ext.-A not produced any document which will show that property was auction sold and the same was purchased by the ancestor of the defendant. No return or copy of register-I was brought on record to show that ex-landlord has submitted return in favour of defendant, only two rent receipt were produced by the defendant which are of the year 2007 and 2011, in my view these two rent receipts are not helping the defendants. The purchase of suit land by the father and sister of the defendant in the year 1980 (Ext.-3 series) is contrary to the case of the defendant and it is an admission by deed by the ancestor of the defendant and this admission is given death

¶39

¶40

2025:JHHC:11645

¶41

blow to the case of the defendant specially the story of auction sale. In my considered view the defendant has not purchased the suit land through auction sale, accordingly this point for determination is also decided against the defendant/appellant.”

¶42

9. This court finds that the learned Trial Court took up the aforesaid issue nos. 8 to 11 together being the main issue and after considering the materials on record held that the plaintiff was the descendant of the recorded tenant. Further the learned Trial Court also considered the claim of the defendant regarding purchase of the suit property in auction sale in the year 1920-21 and claim of purchase by the defendant’s ancestor for which the defendant had filed exhibit-A which was certified copy of the sale register in connection with the Auction Case No. 176 of 1920, Ext. B, order of Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Chatra in Misc. Case No. 16 of 2009-10 in which issuance of rent receipt in favour of the plaintiff was allowed in Khata No. 33 whereas the issuance of rent receipt in Khata No. 52 was allowed in favour of the defendant with a further direction to approach the competent court for declaration of title over the land and also exhibited C and C/1, two rent receipts issued in respect of Khata No. 51 and 52 in the name of Munni Kumari wife of Sadafal Singh. These evidences along with others have been duly considered by the learned Trial Court in paragraph no. 15 and findings have been recorded in paragraph no. 22 and it has been recorded that exhibit-A does not disclose any area or boundary of the land in which the auction was held; it does not disclose as to why, when and how the land was put for auction and how the ancestor of the defendant had purchased it. The learned trial Court also considered that Puniya Devi had sold the land in Khata No. 52 in the year 1980 through three sale deeds exhibited as Exhibit 3 to 3/b. After discussion of all the materials on record both oral and documentary the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff and the claim of the defendant was rejected.

¶43

10. The learned 1^st Appellate Court has also considered the materials on record and has given concurrent findings. The learned 1^st Appellate Court has also held that mere production of sale register was not

¶44

¶45

2025:JHHC:11645

¶46

bonafide proof of title and it must be supported by other documents i.e. sale certificate and delivery of possession but the defendant did not produce any such document to show that the property was auction sold and same was purchased by the ancestors of the defendant. It was also observed that no return or copy of register-1 was brought on record to show that the ex-landlord had submitted the return in favour of the defendant and only two rent receipts were produced by the defendant which were of the year 2007 and 2011. Further the plaintiff was found to be in possession of the property.

¶47

11. This court finds that both the learned courts have scrutinized the materials on record and have declared right, title, interest and possession in favour of the plaintiff and after discussing the materials, the claim of the defendant has been rejected. The plaintiff was also held to be the descendant of the recorded tenant by both the courts.

¶48

12. This court is of the view that there is no scope for re-appreciating evidences on record and coming to a different finding in second appeal in absence of any perversity in the matter of appreciation of evidence. The learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out any perversity in the matter of appreciation of evidence by both the learned courts.

¶49

13. This court finds that, no question of law, much less, any substantial question of law arises for consideration by this court in this second appeal.

¶50

14. Accordingly, this Second Appeal is hereby dismissed.

¶51

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

¶52

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

¶53

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶54

Kunal

¶55