Sufal Bouri Vs Bini Devi

¶1

2026:JHHC:3488

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

S.A. No. 383 of 2019

¶4

Sufal Bouri, aged about 51 years, son of late Kanhai Bouri

¶5

Shyamla Devi @ Thanda Devi, aged about 59 years, daughter of late Kanhai Bouri

¶6

Niranjan Bouri, aged about 29 years, son of late Sabitri Devi

¶7

Lali Devi, aged about 24 years, daughter of late Sabitri Devi All are resident of Barwadda, P.O. Kalyanpur, P.S. Barwadda (Govindpur), District Dhanbad.

¶8

… … Plaintiffs/Appellants/Appellants Versus

¶9

Bini Devi, daughter of late Jatan Mandal, wife of Murli Mandal, R/o village Muraidih, P.O. Maharajganj, P.S. Barora, District Dhanbad.

¶10

Hari Mandal, son of late Jatan Mandal

¶11

Madan Prasad Mandal, son of late Jatan Mandal

¶12

Campus Mandal, son of late Jatan Mandal All are resident of village Lohar Barwa, P.O. Kalyanpur, P.S. Barwadda (Govindpur), District- Dhanbad.

¶13

Pari Devi, daughter of late Jatan Mandal, wife of Jogeshwar Mandal, R/o village- Kulbera, P.O. Kalyanpur, P.S. Barwadda, (Govindpur), District- Dhanbad.

¶14

Monika Mandal, wife of late Haru Mandal @ Nimai

¶15

Raj Kumar Mandal, son of late Haru Mandal @ Nimai Mandal

¶16

Mithu Devi, daughter of late Haru Mandal, wife of Rajesh Mandal, Resident of Kapasara, P.O. Jiramundi, Govindpur, Dhanbad. 6 & 7 are resident of Barwadda, P.O. Kalyanpur, P.S. Barwadda, District Dhanbad.

¶17

Sulekha Devi, daughter of late Haru Mandal @ Nimai Mandal, wife of Subhash Mandal, R/o Dhaiya Basti, P.O. ISM, P.S. Dhanbad, District- Dhanbad.

¶18

10.Bai Mandalani, wife of Jamini Mandal, R/o village Damkara, P.O. Nagnagar, P.S. Barwadda, District- Dhanbad.

¶19

11.Jiria Mandalani, wife of Nimasen Mandal, R/o village & P.O. Nagar Kiyari, P.S. Barwadda, District- Dhanbad.

¶20

12.Jailu Mandalani, wife of Murli Mandal, R/o village & P.O. Salukchapra, P.S. Nirsa (Kalubathan TOP), District- Dhanbad.

¶21

13.Gorki Mandalani, wife of Dilip Mandal, R/o village Urma, P.O. Kalubathan, P.S. Nirsa (Kalubathan TOP), District- Dhanbad.

¶22

14.Kaushalya Mandalani, wife of Raghunandan Mandal, R/o village Raghunathpur, P.O. Raghunathpur, P.S. Topchachi, DistrictDhanbad.

¶23

15.Maldhar Mandal, son of late Kali Mandal

¶24

16.Nirodh Mandal, son of late Kali Mandal Residents of Barwadda, P.O. Kalyanpur, P.S. Barwadda (Govindpur), District Dhanbad.

¶25

… … Defendants/Respondents/Respondents

¶26

¶27

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶28

2026:JHHC:3488

¶29

¶30

For the Appellants : Mr. Shekhar Pd. Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Satyam Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents :

¶31

¶32

19 /10.02.2026 Learned counsel for the appellants is present.

¶33

2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 19.08.2019 (decree sealed and signed on 29.08.2019) passed by learned District Judge-XIV, Dhanbad in Civil Appeal No. 20 of 2017 whereby the learned 1^st appellate court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 08.02.2017 (decree sealed and signed on 16.2.2017) passed by learned Civil Judge, (Sr. Div.)-VI, Dhanbad in Title Suit No. 12 of 2002. The suit was dismissed, 1^st appeal was also dismissed and consequently, the plaintiffs are the appellants before this Court.

¶34

3. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the plaintiffs have lost in both the courts and accordingly, they are the appellants before this Court.

¶35

4. The learned counsel for the appellants, while assailing the impugned judgments, has submitted that there cannot be surrender of 2/3^rd portion of undivided share. He submits that since there was no previous partition, the surrender of property by two registered surrender deeds was not as per law and consequently, the plaintiffs were entitled for ½ share of the entire property described in schedule-

¶36

B.

¶37

5. The learned counsel has referred to paragraph 7 of the appellate court’s judgment and has submitted that this aspect of the matter has not been properly considered.

¶38

6. Learned counsel for the appellants has referred to proposed substantial question of law no. (VII) which is as follows:

¶39

“Whether both the learned courts below have gone into the facts that even after presuming the Surrender Deeds to be true, 1/3^rd share joint share remained un-surrendered and as such admittedly the plaintiffs have title over half of the said 1/3^rd property.”

¶40

2

¶41

2026:JHHC:3488

¶42

7. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, this Court finds that specific case of the plaintiffs was that 4.47 acres of land under 16 plots of Khata no. 51 was recorded in the name of Baburam Bouri and Bipin Bouri both sons of Late Bejo Bouri one share each and Nayan Bouri and Dayal Bouri, both sons of Late Latu Bouri one share each during cadastral survey operation. Bejo Bouri and Latu Bouri separated themselves soon after the cadastral survey operation and partitioned their lands 1/2 and 1/2. Bipin Bouri died issueless and his property devolved upon his brother Baburam Bouri. Baburam Bouri died leaving behind his four daughters, but he transferred all his property to his daughter Ramia Bourin. The plaintiffs have no interest in the property left by Baburam Bouri.

¶43

Nayan Bouri died issueless.

¶44

Dayal Bouri died leaving behind his only son Kanhai Bouri. Kanhai Bouri died leaving behind Sufal Bouri and daughters namely, Shyamla Devi and Sabitri Devi.

¶45

It was their further case that after death of Nayan Bouri, his property devolved upon Dayal Bouri and his brother. After Dayal Bouri, Kanhai Bouri succeeded the property and after Kanhai Bouri, the plaintiffs have succeeded the property and they are in possession of the property. The rent receipts were also issued in favour of the plaintiffs and their ancestors.

¶46

8. However, the plaintiffs had filed M.P. Case no. 1315 of 1992 under section 144 Code of Criminal Procedure when the defendants tried to disturb their possession over the suit property and at that point of time, it revealed that the defendants were claiming that the recorded tenants had surrendered the land to the ex-landlord through registered surrender deeds in the year 1941 and 1945 and later on, the exlandlord settled the land in favour of Budhu Mandal (ancestor of the defendants). The proceeding was dropped vide order dated 05.11.1992 by the then learned SDM, Dhanbad. The case of the plaintiffs was that the defendants have no right, title, interest and possession over the suit property.

¶47

3

¶48

2026:JHHC:3488

¶49

9. In the meantime, in the second week of January, 2002, the defendants had constructed wall in portion of the suit land and the plaintiffs objected, but the defendants asserted that the land belongs to them. Ultimately, the title suit was filed in the year, 2002.

¶50

10. On the other hand, the case of the defendants was that Nayan Bouri died leaving behind his three sons; Budhu Bouri, Lakhiram Bouri and Manu Bouri who inherited 1/3^rd share of their father. They jointly surrendered their share under property of Khata no. 51 to the ex-landlord on 06.04.1945 by registered deed of surrender and relinquished their right, title and interest over the same. The exlandlord came in possession and then Budhu Bouri had taken settlement of the land surrendered by sons of late Nayan Bouri. Dayal Bouri, the predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiffs, had also surrendered his 1/3^rd share in Khata no. 51 on 29.04.1941 through registered surrendered deed.

¶51

Budhu Mandal, grandfather of the defendants had taken the same on settlement from the ex-landlord vide Hukumnamas in the year 1941 and 1945 respectively and since then the defendants remained in possession of the suit property and paid rent to the ex-landlord and after vesting, they have been paying rent to the State of Bihar (now Jharkhand).

¶52

11. It was asserted by the defendants that the plaintiffs have no right, title, interest and possession over the suit property. The plaintiffs never came in possession. During the revisional survey operation, the suit property was recorded in the name of the defendants. Out of 4.47 acres of land, 1/3^rd interest belonged to Baburan Bouri which was in possession of his daughter and other legal heirs. The remaining 2/3^rd interest of the suit property i.e. 2.98 acres under Khata no. 51 was in possession of the defendants.

¶53

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

¶54

“1. Is the suit maintainable in its present form?

¶55

2. Is the suit barred by limitation, acquiescence, waiver, estoppal etc?

¶56

4

¶57

2026:JHHC:3488

¶58

3. Is the suit barred by joinder, non-joinder, mis-joinder of the parties?

¶59

4. Is there any cause of action for the present suit?

¶60

5. Is the plaintiff entitled for a decree declaring the right, title, interest and confirmation of his possession on the suit land?

¶61

6. Is the plaintiff entitled for restoration of possession of the suit land, if he is found dispossessed?

¶62

7. Is the plaintiff entitled for a decree for permanent injunction against the defendants?

¶63

8. Is the plaintiff entitled for a decree of the cost of the suit?

¶64

9. Is the plaintiff entitled for any other/further relief/reliefs?”

¶65

13. Both the parties led oral and documentary evidences.

¶66

14. The learned trial court first took up issue no. 5 and the learned court recorded the following findings against the plaintiffs and decided the said issue no. 5 as under:

¶67

“4….The plaintiff has nowhere sought any relief for annulment of Ext.-B which is khatiyan prepared by the Government. More particularly the plaintiff have not challenged the surrendered deed No.3464 dated 29.4.1941 and 2605 dated 6.4.1945 which are Exts.-'C' & C/1 respectively anywhere. When no evidence has come from the side of the plaintiff that Ext.-C and C/1 are false and fabricated, a clearcut inference is there that they are accepting the execution of Ext.-C and C/1. When Ext.-C & C/1 are true and they have nowhere be challenged by the plaintiffs, the claim of the plaintiff ends here because the plaintiffs are claiming their title in the capacity of legal heirs of Kanhai Bauri who was son of Dayal Bauri. Since Dayal Bauri and sons of Nayan Bauri had surrendered their shares to Raja Shiva Prasad Singh, no question arises of claiming the title and shares of Dayal Bauri and Nayan Bauri by their lineal descendants of Dayal Bauri. In course of submission, the Ld. Lawyer for the plaintiff has submitted that in the surrendered deed property more than the shares has been surrendered and the property of minors has been surrendered which contradicts the provision contained in Sec.-8 of Hindu Guardianship Act. On this point it is clear that the property has been surrendered prior to enactment of Hindu Guardianship Act and only that property will be deemed to be surrendered which is in the share of Dayal Bauri and Nayan Bauri. Since, the properties which the plaintiffs are claiming,

¶68

5

¶69

2026:JHHC:3488

¶70

have been surrendered by Dayal Bauri in 1941 and Nayan Bauri in 1945, they are not entitled to get their title and possession over the same property. So issue No.5 i.e. Is the plaintiff entitled for a decree declaring the right, title, interest and confirmation of his possession on the suit land is decided against the plaintiff because forefathers of the plaintiff already surrendered the land. Hence, the plaintiffs cannot claim title and possession of that land.”

¶71

15. Thereafter, the learned trial court decided issue no. 6 and 7 and held as follows:

¶72

“5. Issue No.6 i.e. is the plaintiff is entitled for restoration of possession of the suit land if he is found disposed and Issue No.7 i.e. is the Plaintiff is entitled for a decree for permanent injunction against the defendants are inter-connected so these two issues are being decided commonly. From the bare reading of pleadings as well as evidence of the plaintiff and the documentary evidence particularly Ext.-1, Ext.-C & Ext.C/1 it is clear that plaintiffs are legal heirs of Kanhai Bauri who is son of Dayal Bauri. Ext.-1 makes it clear that the land mentioned in the schedule was in the name of Babu Ram Bauri and Bipan Bauri both sons of Bejo Bauri and Dayal Bauri and Nayan Bauri both sons of Latu Bauri. Ext.-C & C/1, two surrendered deeds, also make it clear that both Dayal Bauri and legal heirs of Nayan Bauri surrendered their shares to Raja Shiva Prasad Singh in the year 1941 and 1945 respectively. These two surrendered deeds have nowhere been challenged by the plaintiff nor the plaintiff took pain to move to the appropriate authority for annulment of these two surrendered deeds. Moreover, Para-7 & Para-8 of the plaint clearly transpire that the plaintiffs are lineal deceased of Dayal Bauri and they are claiming their shares in the capacity of legal heirs of Kanhai Bauri who happened to be the son of Dayal Bauri but Ext.-C/1 clearly shows that Dayal Bauri surrendered his land to Raja Shiva Prasad Singh through registered deed No.3464 dated 29.04.1941. Since Dayal Bauri surrendered his share so no question arises of plaintiff inheriting the share of Dayal Bauri. When the plaintiff fails to get right, title and interest in the property due to the fact that the property was surrendered by Dayal Bauri in the year 1941 to Raja Shiva Prasad Singh, no question of restoration of possession of the suit land to the plaintiff and a decree for permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant arises. Hence, Issue Nos. 6 & 7 are decided against the plaintiff.”

¶73

6

¶74

2026:JHHC:3488

¶75

16. Issue no. 1 and 4 were also decided by the learned trial court in paragraph 6 of its judgment against the plaintiffs on the ground that the plaintiffs failed to prove any cause of action to file the suit. The findings are as under:

¶76

“6. Issue No.4 i.e. is there any cause of action for the present suit & Issue No.1 is the suit is maintainable in its present form are to be decided jointly. Plaintiff Sufal Bauri in his chief has stated that in the month of last december and 2nd week of Jan,2002 the defendant started making construction over his land. At the time when the defendant were making construction the plaintiff was not there. Further in chief the plaintiff stated that in M.P. Case by the rejoinder filed by the defendant, he came to know that the land has been surrendered to Raja Shiva Prasad Singh in the year 1941-45. After hearing the news the plaintiff started searching for the genuineness of the surrendered deed in the registry office but he could not find any such document. The plaintiff has not brought up on the record any such document which may indicate or show that any M.P. Case was filed and the plaintiff searched for the genuineness of the surrendered deeds in the registry office. Moreover, from the story of the plaintiff that in the last week for the month of December and 2nd Week of the January, 2002 the defendant were making construction over the land of the plaintiffs appears far away from the truth because other witnesses of the plaintiffs have in their statements given different statements on this point, it appears that plaintiff has falsely concocted this story of construction of house on the land of the plaintiff just to making cause of action of filing the suit which has not been corroborated or authenticated either orally by documentary evidence. Hence, Issue No.4 i.e. Is there any cause of action for the present suit is decided against the plaintiff. Since Issue No.4 is decided against the plaintiff , Issue No.1 i.e. Is the suit is maintainable in its present form is also decided against the plaintiff.”

¶77

17. Ultimately the suit was dismissed by holding that the plaintiffs were not found entitled for a decree of right, title and interest and confirmation of possession on the suit land.

¶78

18. So far as the learned 1^st appellate court is concerned, the appellate court framed only one point for determination which is as follows:

¶79

7

¶80

2026:JHHC:3488

¶81

“Are the plaintiffs/appellants entitled for a decree declaring their right, title, interest and possession over the suit land?”

¶82

19. The learned 1^st appellate court recorded its finding in paragraph 10 onwards of its judgment. The learned court recorded a finding that in the cadastral survey record-of-right, Khata No. 51 was recorded in the name of Baburam Bouri and Bipin Bouri, sons of Beijo Bouri and Dayal Bouri and Nayan Bouri sons of Latu Bouri , in equal shares. The learned court noted that there was nothing on record to show that the partition took place in between the recorded tenants. However, the plots were shown in possession of the different recorded tenants and this finding was recorded by considering the oral evidences on record. 20. The learned 1^st appellate court discussed the rent receipts produced on behalf of the defendants and also the exhibit-C which was copy of registered surrender deed no. 3464 executed by Dayal Bouri in favour of ex-landlord for dues of compensation. It was recorded that he had surrendered 1.49 acres of land of 16 plots out of 4.47 acres under Khata no. 51 and he had received the compensation. Exhibit C/1 was the surrender deed dated 06.04.1945 executed by Budhu Bouri and Lakhu Bouri, sons of Nayan Bouri through guardianship of Raji Bourin, wife of Late Nayan Bouri, Bhanu Bouri son of Late Mansa Bauri through guardian Budhu Bouri surrendering 1.49 acres of land out of 4.47 acres of land of 16 plots of Khata no. 51 for compensation of Rs. 59/- paid by Budhu Mandal. It has come on record that after the aforesaid surrender, the surrendered land was settled with Budhu Mandal who came in possession of the same and after his death, his sons Moti Mandal, Kalipado Mandal and Jyoti Chand Mandal succeeded over the land and the revisional survey record of right was prepared in their favour. It was recorded by the learned 1^st appellate court that there was nothing on record to show that the minor sons of Nayan Bouri ever challenged the execution of the registered surrender deed in their name by their guardian. Admittedly, the deed of surrender of the year 1941 and 1945 was not under challenge and it was never challenged.

¶83

8

¶84

2026:JHHC:3488

¶85

21. The learned 1^st appellate court recorded that after execution of surrender deeds by their forefather, the plaintiffs have no claim over the same and the settled land was in possession of the defendants as per the material on record which was settled by Sada Hukumnama followed by continuous rent receipts. Admittedly, the deed of surrender under exhibit- C was for 1.49 acres of land of 16 plots out of 4.47 acres of land in Khata No. 51 and by Exhibit- C/1, the deed of surrender was for 1.49 acres of land out of 4.47 acres of the 16 plots of Khata No. 51.

¶86

22. The learned Court ultimately recorded that the plaintiffs do not have any right, title and interest with respect to the land which was surrendered by way of deed of surrender of the year 1941 and 1945 and settled in favour of the defendants.

¶87

23. This court finds that the learned courts have passed wellreasoned judgements taking into consideration every aspect of the matter and the two registered surrender deeds were not even under challenge in the proceedings and were never challenged. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the learned courts have not committed any perversity of law or of fact while refusing to decree ½ share of the entire suit land as claimed by the plaintiffs. The registered surrender deeds of the year 1941 and 1945 were on receipt of compensation and thereafter the lands were settled with the defendants who came in possession and paid rent to the exlandlord and were also recognized as tenants by the state as they paid rent to the state upon vesting of zamindari. There is no question of law, much less any substantial question of law involved in this second appeal which is hereby dismissed.

¶88

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

¶89

25. Let this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through ‘FAX/email’.

¶90

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶91

Date of Order:10.02.2026 Pankaj

¶92

Date of Uploading:20.02.2026

¶93

9