High Court of Jharkhand (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) dismisses second appeal S.A. No. 87 of 2009 filed by the plaintiffs (Shankar Oraon and Kirtan Bhagat) whose decree in Title Suit No. 28 of 1999 (Munsif, Lohardaga) had been reversed in Title Appeal No. 02 of 2008 (District Judge, Lohardaga). The sole substantial question of law (framed on 10.10.2011) was whether the first appellate court erred in reversing the trial court's finding on adverse possession without considering Exhibit-2 (registered deed of relinquishment dated 28.11.1961 executed by Jagat Mahto) and the evidence of D.W.2, D.W.4 and D.W.6. HELD: (i) Adverse possession is essentially a question of fact; the claimant must prove the date from which possession began, its nature, and that it was open, hostile and undisturbed. (ii) Even reckoning possession from the 1961 relinquishment deed, the statutory 30-year period (Bihar Schedule Areas Regulation 1969 extending the limitation under Section 65, Limitation Act 1963, for Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act tenures) expired only in 1991, whereas a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. (later converted to Section 145 Cr.P.C.) was instituted in 1989 disputing the plaintiffs' possession, so possession was not uninterrupted and peaceful for 30 years. (iii) Exhibit-2, though invalid as a transfer under Section 46 of the Chhota Nagpur Tenancy Act 1908 for want of the Deputy Commissioner's sanction, does not disclose the date of the plaintiffs' possession and cannot by itself establish adverse possession; D.W.2, D.W.4 and D.W.6 deposed nothing about the period or date of possession. (iv) The cadastral and revisional survey records of rights did not support the plaintiffs, and the recent survey recorded their possession only since 1975. The first appellate court therefore committed no error in reversing the trial court; the plaintiffs failed to prove adverse possession. Appeal dismissed; pending interlocutory applications dismissed as not pressed.
