Dismissed¶86

Most Bobe Devi And Ors. v. Ganesh Dan And Ors.

Jharkhand HC2 Dec 2025SA/75/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second appeal dismissed; no substantial question of law; res judicata bar on title claim; adverse possession ingredients not satisfied; joint Hindu family property declaration suit; registered sale deed dated 12.05.1978; Title Suit No.07 of 2003 (Munsif, Khunti); Title Appeal No.115 of 2008 (Judicial Commissioner-XVII, Ranchi); earlier Title Suit No.130 of 1980, Title Appeal No.86 of 1988, Second Appeal No.76 of 1994; Section 144 proceeding instituted 2001; Section 11 Code of Civil Procedure; Bundu, District Ranchi; Jharkhand High Court.

What did the court decide?

No substantial question of law is involved in this case; the proposed substantial questions on the sustainability of the res judicata findings and the alleged misinterpretation of Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure therefore do not survive. ¶85

Most Bobe Devi And Ors. Vs Ganesh Dan And Ors. — Jharkhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶86

Issue for consideration

Proposed substantial question of law B: Whether the finding of both the learned Courts below on the point of res judicata is not sustainable in the eyes of law? +2 more

¶50

Court's answer

The findings of the learned Courts below were recorded after due appreciation of the materials on record and no perversity in the appreciation of the materials was pointed out; the challenge to the res judicata and related findings therefore fails.

¶84

Ratio / Principle

¶85

Key takeaways

The basic ingredients of adverse possession were not satisfied; the Court endorsed the lower courts' rejection of the plaintiffs' claim to have acquired title by adverse possession.ratio¶84

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi — S.A. No. 75 of 2017, decided 02.12.2025 (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.). Second Appeal against the judgment dated 30.07.2016 of the Judicial Commissioner-XVII, Ranchi in Title Appeal No.115 of 2008, which affirmed the judgment dated 14.08.2008 of the Munsif, Civil Court, Khunti in Title Suit No.07 of 2003 dismissing the plaintiffs-appellants' suit seeking a declaration that the suit property was the joint Hindu family property of the plaintiffs and defendant No.18, acquired from ancestral joint family funds through a registered deed of sale dated 12.05.1978 and held in continuous possession for more than 25 years. The trial court held the title claim barred by res judicata in view of the earlier Title Suit No.130 of 1980 instituted by defendant No.18 (father of the plaintiffs), dismissed on 09.09.1988, with Title Appeal No.86 of 1988 dismissed on 02.06.1994 and Second Appeal No.76 of 1994 dismissed on 24.03.1995; the plea of adverse possession was rejected as the parties were in litigating terms until 1995 and a Section 144 proceeding was instituted in 2001. The first appellate court affirmed both findings. On the proposed substantial questions of law (sustainability of the res judicata findings; alleged misinterpretation of Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure), the High Court held that no substantial question of law was involved, endorsed the finding that the basic ingredients of adverse possession were not satisfied, found no perversity in the lower courts' appreciation of the materials, and dismissed the appeal; pending interlocutory applications were dismissed as not pressed.

¶1

2025:JHHC:36135

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

S.A. No. 75 of 2017

¶4

Most Bobe Devi, widow of Late Binod Choudhary;

¶5

Roshan Choudhary, son of late Binod Choudhary;

¶6

Puja Kumari;

¶7

Choti Kumari;

¶8

Both 3 and 4, daughters of late Binod Choudhary represented through their mother and natural guardian;

¶9

All are residents of Thana Road, Bundu, P.O. Bundu, P.S. Bundu, District Ranchi.

¶10

Pramod Choudhary;

¶11

Shimod Choudhary;

¶12

Praveen Choudhary; Nos.5 to 7, sons of Bishwanath Choudhary, residents of Thana Road, Bundu, P.O. Bundu, P.S. Bundu, District Ranchi.

¶13

… …Plaintiffs/Appellants/Appellants

¶14

Versus

¶15

Ganesh Dan (dead and substituted vide order dated 17.08.2023)

¶16

1.(a) Most. Usha Devi, widow of late Ganesh Dan

¶17

1.(b) Raju Dan

¶18

1.(c) Sourabh Dan

¶19

1(d) Banty Dan

¶20

All S/o Late Ganesh Dan, R/o Babu Ram Toli, Bundu, P.O.& P.S. Bundu, District Ranchi

¶21

Jaideo Dan,

¶22

Panchu Dan

¶23

Babri Dan

¶24

Alaka Dan,

¶25

All sons of late Smt. Geeta Dan and Late Narain Chandra Dan, residents of Thana Road, Bundu, P.O. Bundu, P.S. Bundu, District Ranchi.

¶26

Smt. Nayan Tara Devi, wife of Shri Bhairo Nag, resident of Safam, P.O. Safam, P.S. Tenughat, District Bokaro.

¶27

Smt. Mini Devi, wife of Shri Haradhan Dutta, resident of Bara Bazar, P.O. Bara Bazar, P.S. Bara Bazar, District Purulia (West Bengal);

¶28

Smt. Chaini Devi, wife of Shir Chandi Dutta, resident of Village Jaharhatu, P.O. Begun Kudar, P.S. Jhalda, District Purulia (West Bengal);

¶29

Smt. Bibi Ganjhu, daughter of late Bihari Ganjhu;

¶30

Most. Etwari Devi, wife of Manglu Ganjhu @ Mahesh Ganjhu;

¶31

Chandan Ganjhu,

¶32

¶33

2025:JHHC:36135

¶34

Kundan Ganjhu, 13. Susanti, 14. Banjanti, 15. Deowanti, All are daughters of late Mangl Gonjhu @ Mahesh Gonjhu, All Nos.11 to 15 are minors through their mother and natural guardian Most Etwari; 16. Madhai Ganjhu @ Ramesh 17. Limesh Ganjhu; Nos.16 and 17 sons of late Gobardhan Ganjhu; 18. Kaushyla Devi, wife of Shambhu Singh Ganjhu 19. Most. Ahil Devi, daughter of Lakhi Charan Ganjhu; Nos.9 to 19 are residents of Thana Road, Bundu, P.O. Bundu, P.S. Bundu, District Ranchi 20. Sukra Ganjhu (dead and substituted vide order dated 17.08.2023) 20(a) Shanti Ganjhu, wife of Sukra Ganjhu; 20(b) Shiv Ganjhu 20(c)Laxman Ganjhu, 20(d) Lala Ganjhu All son of Late Sukra Ganjhu, R/o Thana Road Bundu, P.O. & P.S. Bundu, District Ranchi. 21. Budhu Ganjhu; 22. Chaita Ganjhu; Nos.21 and 22 are the sons of Lakhi Charan Ganjhu, residents of Thana Road, Bundu, P.O. Bundu, P.S. Bundu, District Ranchi 23. Bishwanath Choudhary, son of late Mani Lal Choudhary, residents of Thana Road, Bundu, P.O. Bundu, P.S. Bundu, District Ranchi.

¶35

… …Defendants/ Respondents/Respondents

¶36

¶37

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶38

--For the Appellants : Mr. Ashim Kumar Sahani, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Advocate Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate Mr. Shubham Malviya, Advocate

¶39

¶40

15/2^nd December 2025

¶41

1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants.

¶42

2. This Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 30.07.2016 (Decree signed on 11.08.2016) passed by the learned Judicial Commissioner-XVII, Ranchi in Title Appeal No.115 of 2008 affirming

¶43

¶44

2025:JHHC:36135

¶45

the judgment dated 14.08.2008 (Decree signed on 22.08.2008) passed by the learned Munsif, Civil Court, Khunti in Title Suit No.07 of 2003.

¶46

3. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the learned Trial Court had dismissed the suit on contest and the learned 1^st Appellate Court has also dismissed the 1^st Appeal and, therefore, the plaintiffs are the appellants before this Court.

¶47

4. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that a plea of res judicata was raised before the Court and the learned Trial Court held that so far as the claim of title in connection with sale deed dated 12.05.1978 (Exhibit-7) is concerned, the same was barred by res judicata as the issue was already decided between the same parties in Title Suit No.130 of 1980. He submits that the learned Trial Court however held that the plea of adverse possession was not barred by res judicata .

¶48

5. The learned counsel further submits that the learned Trial Court, after considering the materials including the fact that one proceeding under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was instituted way back in the year 2001 and also the fact that the parties were in litigating terms in Title Suit No.130 of 1980, which was fought till the appellate stage and was ultimately decided in the year 1995, held that the plaintiffs were not entitled for the claim of adverse possession.

¶49

6. The learned counsel submits that so far as the learned 1^st Appellate Court is concerned, neither the plea of res judicata nor the plea of adverse possession has been decided by considering the materials on record and has submitted that the proposed substantial question of law Nos.B and C arise for consideration in this case, which read as under:

¶50

“B. Whether the finding of both the learned Courts below on the point of res judicata is not sustainable in the eyes of law?

¶51

C. Whether the impugned judgments are vitiated on account of misinterpretation of Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure?”

¶52

7. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, this Court finds that the suit was filed by the plaintiffs seeking a declaration that the suit

¶53

¶54

2025:JHHC:36135

¶55

property was the joint Hindu family property of the plaintiffs and the defendant no. 18 as the same was acquired from the ancestral joint family fund and they came in possession of the suit property after purchase through the registered deed of sale dated 12.05.1978 from Lakhikant Chatterjee and since then they are in continuous possession for more than 25 years in open assertion of their title to the knowledge and exclusion of all concerned including defendant Nos.1 to 17. It was the case of the plaintiffs that the defendants are owners and possessors of different lands on the boundary adjacent to the suit property.

¶56

8. On the other hand, the case of the defendants was that the father of the plaintiffs (defendant No.18) had earlier instituted a suit numbered as Title Suit No.130 of 1980, which was dismissed and decree was passed in the said suit and was confirmed by the High Court. The present suit was alleged to be barred by the principle of res judicata .

¶57

9. The defendant Nos.11 to 17 in their written statement, contended that the defendants on their own, and not as representative or as a karta of the said joint family, had conducted the earlier litigation without taking other members of the family into confidence and without consulting them. It was the case of the defendants that the suit was barred by res judicata in view of the earlier Title Suit No.130 of 1980, which was filed by the present defendant No.18 which was dismissed on 09.09.1988, against which, Title Appeal No.86 of 1988 was dismissed vide judgment dated 02.06.1994 and Second Appeal No.76 of 1994 was also dismissed on 24.03.1995.

¶58

10. The case of the aforesaid defendants was that the father of the plaintiffs (defendant no. 18) had earlier instituted a Title Suit No. 130 of 1980 in the court of Sub-Judge, Khunti, which was dismissed and decree passed in that suit was confirmed up to the High Court. It was asserted that the present suit being the later suit was barred by principles of Resjudicata. It was also asserted that the plaintiffs had claimed that the suit property is a joint family property but the family were not made party in the proceedings. The defendants also denied the claim of the plaintiffs that

¶59

¶60

2025:JHHC:36135

¶61

they were in possession of the disputed property since 1978. It was asserted that the plaintiffs neither stated that the constructed house situated on the property was constructed by them nor they had made any such claim. It was also asserted that there was a proceeding under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which was dismissed on 11.02.2002 and the application of the defendant No.18, the father of the plaintiffs, for demarcation of the property was also rejected by the Circle Officer on 11.09.2002.

¶62

11. The learned trial Court framed the following issues for consideration : -

¶63

“(i) Whether the suit is maintainable?

¶64

(ii) Whether the suit is undervalued and filed court fee is insufficient?

¶65

(iii) Whether the proper description of dispute land is given?

¶66

(iv) Whether the suit is barred by limitation act or any other act or principles of Res-judicata?

¶67

(v) Whether the plaintiffs and defendant No.18 jointly constitute a joint undivided Hindu Family and whether the said family has title and possession over the disputed land since 1978?

¶68

(vi) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get relief or relief’s as claimed for?

¶69

12. The learned Trial Court considered all the materials on record and ultimately vide paragraph No.18, held that earlier suit of the year 1980 was filed by the defendant No.18 of the present suit and the plaintiffs are the sons of defendant No.18 and was of the view that the judgment passed in the earlier Title Suit bearing No.130 of 1980 was binding on the parties and the present suit was barred by res judicata .

¶70

13. The learned Court further considered the plea of adverse possession in paragraph No.19 of the judgment and observed that the plaintiffs claimed that they were in continuous possession for last 25 years and, therefore, they have acquired title by adverse possession. The plea was rejected by observing that the parties were in litigating terms in Title Suit No.130 of 1980 and at that point of time, there was no question of adverse

¶71

¶72

2025:JHHC:36135

¶73

possession, inasmuch as, the property was purchased only in the year 1978 and, therefore, the point of adverse possession was not involved in the earlier title suit and, therefore, observed that the plea of adverse possession was not barred by res judicata .

¶74

14. Thereafter, the learned Court considered the materials on record from paragraph 20 onwards with respect of plea of adverse possession and after considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record held that the plaintiffs have failed to make out the case for adverse possession and the plaintiffs had not acquired title by way of adverse possession. While deciding the aforesaid, the learned Court inter alia recorded that the parties were in litigating terms in Title Suit No.130 of 1980 and the judgment passed in Title Suit attained finality only in the year 1995 then the Second Appeal was ultimately decided by the High Court and there was also a proceeding under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Proceeding in the year 2001. In those circumstances, the Court decided the point of adverse possession against the plaintiffs and clearly held that the plaintiffs were not in peaceful possession of the property since 1978.

¶75

15. The learned 1^st Appellate Court has framed the point of determination in paragraph 12 of its judgment and observed that the pertinent question was whether the appeal brought by the plaintiffs was tenable in the eyes of law and the judgment and decree dated 14.08.2008 passed by the learned trial Court in Title Suit No.07 of 2003 was liable to be set aside. The learned 1^st Appellate Court in paragraph 14 observed that the point of res judicata was one of the prominent issues to be decided in the case.

¶76

16. The learned 1^st Appellate Court, thereafter, observed in paragraph 17 of the judgement that in order to operate as res judicata the finding must be such that it disposes of a matter that is directly and substantially in issue in the former suit, and that the said issue must have been heard and finally decided by the Court trying such suit, which is collaterally or incidentally in issue for the purpose of deciding a matter.

¶77

¶78

2025:JHHC:36135

¶79

17. The learned Court then recorded in paragraph 20 that the plaintiffs/appellants have admitted that their father- defendant No.18 had instituted a title suit for the suit land in the court of Sub Judge, Khunti, vide Title Suit No. 130 of 1980 i.e. only after two years of its purchase, from Nilkant Chatterjee. The suit was dismissed then defendant no.18 preferred appeal vide Title Appeal No.86/1988 which was also dismissed on 02.06.1994 and further Second Appeal was also dismissed on 24.03.1995. The learned 1^st appellate Court then held that the learned Trial Court had rightly observed that the suit was barred by res judicata .

¶80

18. The learned Court, thereafter, in paragraph 22 observed that the appellants could not rebut the evidences brought on record by the contesting defendants as they could not clarify how the documents were found in the possession of the defendants. The learned Court recorded that the learned Trial Court had rightly held that the plaintiffs failed to prove their right, title, interest and possession over the suit property.

¶81

19. This Court finds that though the learned 1^st Appellate Court has not in particular referred to the various documents, which were placed on record while deciding the plea of adverse possession, but has observed that the plaintiffs have failed to establish right, title, interest and possession over the suit land and this was recorded after perusal of the evidences produced. The learned Trial Court has considered all the evidences placed on record including the documentary evidences. It is not in dispute that the father of the plaintiffs (present defendant no. 18) had instituted a title suit for the suit land in the court of the Sub-Judge, Khunti vide T.S. No. 130/1 of 1980 (i.e. only after two years of their purchase from Nilkant Chatterjee). The suit was dismissed and thereafter, defendant no.18 preferred appeal vide T.A. No. 86/1988 which was dismissed on 02.06.1994 by learned A.J.C. Khunti. The defendant no.18 preferred Second Appeal in the High Court and the said appeal was dismissed on 24.03.1995. The fact remains that the earlier Title Suit stood contested till the Second Appellate stage, which was ultimately decided in the year 1995 against the father of the present plaintiffs (defendant no. 18 in the

¶82

¶83

2025:JHHC:36135

¶84

present case). Thereafter, a proceeding under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also instituted in connection with the suit property. This court is of the considered view that the learned Court has rightly held that the basic ingredients of adverse possession were not satisfied. This court is of the view that the findings have been recorded after due appreciation of the materials on record and no perversity as such has been pointed out in the appreciation of materials on record.

¶85

20. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that no substantial question of law is involved in this case.

¶86

21. In view of the above, this appeal is hereby dismissed.

¶87

22. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, is dismissed as not pressed.

¶88

23. Let this order be communicated to the concerned court through “email/FAX”.

¶89

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶90

02.12.2025