Jagat Murmu Vs Bhadaw Murmu

2026:JHHC:3777

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

S.A. No. 69 of 2023

Jagat Murmu, aged about 40 years, son of Late Shyam Murmu, resident of Karandih, Main Road, P.O.- Karandih via Tatanagar, P.S.Parsudih, Town Jamshedpur, District- East Singhbhum, Jharkhand

¶5

… … Plaintiff/Respondent/Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Bhadaw Murmu, aged about 65 years, son of Late Lakhai Murmu @ Lakhai Majhi @ Bikram, resident of Karandih, Main Road, P.O.Karandih via Tatanagar, P.S.- Parsudih, Town Jamshedpur, DistrictEast Singhbhum, Jharkhand

¶8

… … Defendant/Appellant/Respondent

¶9

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶11

¶12

For the Appellant : Mr. Prabhash Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Manish Sharma, Advocate : Mr. P. Pradhan, Advocate For the Respondent : ---

¶13

06 /11.02.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

¶14

appellant.

¶15

2. This second appeal has been filed against the Judgement dated 31.01.2023 (Decree signed on 08.02.2023) passed by the learned Principal District Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Civil Appeal No.17 of 2019 whereby the Civil Appeal has been allowed. The trial court judgement is dated 30.01.2019 (decree dated 08.02.2019) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division-I), Jamshedpur in Title (Eviction) Suit No.120 of 2011. The suit was decreed and the learned 1^st appellate court has reversed the findings of the learned trial court. Consequently, the plaintiff is the appellant before this Court.

¶16

3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the suit property belongs to the plaintiff. The specific case of the plaintiff was that originally Shyam Murmu was the owner of the suit land which stood recorded in his name in the last survey settlement published in 1964. After the death of the original owner, it devolved upon his sons, the plaintiff and one Srimati Murmu, and during the lifetime of their father, the suit property was handed over to the plaintiff.

¶17

1

¶18

2026:JHHC:3777

¶19

4. The learned counsel further submitted that after amicable partition between the plaintiff and his brother, the suit property fell in the exclusive share of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff constructed a house over the suit property. The specific case of the plaintiff was that the plaintiff had allowed the defendant to remain in the suit property on the basis of oral agreement and therefore, the defendant has been in permissive possession as a licensee under the plaintiff. The suit property was required by the plaintiff for repairs, but the defendant refused to vacate the suit property. Consequently, after the issuance of a legal notice and when the defendant did not vacate the suit premises, the suit was filed seeking eviction of the defendant.

¶20

5. The learned counsel submitted that the plaintiff had produced the correction slip showing mutation in his favour, though marked with objection, and the rent receipt, also marked with objection, which were exhibited as Exhibits-3 and 4. He submitted that these documents were enough to show that the suit property belonged to the plaintiff. The learned counsel submitted that these documents have not been properly considered and referred to proposed substantial questions of law nos.6, 7 and 8 of the memo of appeal, which are quoted as under:

¶21

“(6) Whether the defendant / appellant has admitted the fact that rent of the suit property was paid by the plaintiff?

¶22

(7) Whether in the survey settlement of 1964, the suit land is recorded in the name of Plaintiff’s father Shyam Manjhi and documents Ext.3 (correction slip) and Ext.4 (Rent receipt) disclosed that correction slip dated 08.06.2005 is in the name of plaintiff/respondent and rent receipts respectively and copy of Form – 27 in the name of Shyam Manjhi?

¶23

(8) Whether the learned lower appellate court arrived at a wrong conclusion that correction slip (Ext.3), Rent receipt (Ext.4), Form 27 are not going to prove any title of the Plaintiff/Respondent as well as this fact that any partition took place between the parties by meets and bounds as because both the parties are claiming suit property as their

¶24

2

¶25

2026:JHHC:3777

¶26

own ancestral property and these documents are prepared only for collection of rent purpose and no sufficient proof of the fact of partition ?”

¶27

6. The case of the plaintiff has been narrated by the learned counsel for the appellant. However, the records reveal that the defendant appeared before the court and claimed that the plaintiff was not the owner of the suit property. During his lifetime, the defendant’s father had purchased the said property and constructed a house from his own income. It was further stated that Late Lakhai Majhi was the original owner of the suit property and had two sons Bhadaw Murmudefendant and Shyam Murmu, the plaintiff’s father and one daughter, who was unmarried.

¶28

7. The defendant claimed that the father namely, Late Lakhai Majhi was an employee of M/s. Tata Iron & Steel Company Limited, Jamshedpur and he had given service to his first son i.e. Shyam Murmu (plaintiff's father) and the entire property was given to his second son the defendant and therefore, the defendant claimed that he was living on the suit property on his own right and there was no relationship of licensor and licensee between the plaintiff and the defendant.

¶29

8. The plaintiff adduced both oral and documentary evidences. Exhibit-1 is legal notice, Exhibit-2 is postal receipt, Exhibit-3 is correction slip showing mutation marked with objection and Exhibit-4 is rent receipt marked with objection. The defendant only adduced himself as witness and no documentary evidence as such was adduced by the defendant.

¶30

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

¶31

“1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form for the relief claimed?

¶32

11. Whether the plaintiff has got valid cause of action for bringing the suit?

¶33

III. Whether the suit is barred by limitation, waiver, estoppel and acquiescence?

¶34

3

¶35

2026:JHHC:3777

¶36

IV. Whether there exists relationship of Licensor and Licensee between the plaintiff and defendant in respect of the suit premises?

¶37

V. Whether the defendant was in permissive possession of the plaintiff?

¶38

VI. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for eviction of defendant from Schedule-A premises?

¶39

VII. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for any compensation / cost from the defendant?

¶40

VIII. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any other relief under law of equity or under any other law?”

¶41

10. The learned trial court considered the Issue Nos. IV, V and VI together as framed, vide Paragraph-10 onwards.

¶42

11. The learned trial court recorded that it is not in dispute between the parties that the defendant is the own uncle of the plaintiff, but no documentary evidence was produced on behalf of the defendant. The trial court also recorded that for the purpose of creation of licence, no written instrument is necessary and under Section 54 of the Easements Act, the grant of licence may be express or implied from the conduct of the guarantor. The learned trial court referred to Exhibits- 1, 2, 3 and 4 as well as the evidence of plaintiff’s witnesses and recorded that it has been proved that there is relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant which existed as that of a licensor and a licensee. Accordingly, the issues were decided in favour of the plaintiff, and the suit was consequently decreed.

¶43

12. Before the learned 1st appellate court, it was the case of the defendant that late Lakhai Majhi was the original owner of the property. It was also asserted that there had been no amicable partition between the defendant and the father of the plaintiff. It was incorrect to say that the defendant was the licensee of the plaintiff with respect to the suit property; rather, the defendant was the absolute owner of the suit property which was given to him by his father.

¶44

13. The learned 1st appellate court considered the arguments on behalf of the plaintiff in Paragraph-7, wherein the counsel submitted

¶45

4

¶46

2026:JHHC:3777

¶47

that four suits were filed against different persons i.e. Title (Eviction) Suit No.120 of 2011 (present suit), (2) Eviction Suit No.21 of 2011 against Nazie Soren, (3) Eviction Suit No.22 of 2011 against Dr. Balram Murmu and (4) Eviction Suit No.23 of 2011 against Kandur Tudu @ Kandur Majhi. It was submitted that all four suits were standing on the same piece of land and as the original documents were filed in Eviction Suit No.21 of 2011, the plaintiff could not file the documents in the present suit. The court also recorded the submission that the plaintiff, in his evidence, had stated that he had two brothers and three sisters, but he had not made them party in the suit. The learned 1st appellate court framed the following points for determination:

¶48

(I) Whether their exists any licensor- licensee relationship between the parties?

¶49

(II) Whether the respondent/plaintiff is entitled for decree of eviction of the appellant/defendant from the suit premises?

¶50

(III) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial court is sustainable?

¶51

14. The learned 1^st appellant court recorded that it was admitted case of the plaintiff that after amicable partition between the plaintiff and his brother, the suit property fell in the share of the plaintiff and he had given the same to the defendant under permissive possession.

¶52

15. The learned 1^st appellant court recorded that on the other hand, it was the case of the defendant that the property was standing in the name of their father namely, Lakhai Majhi who had purchased the property and had constructed a house and that there was no amicable partition between the defendant and the plaintiff and that the defendant was not a licensee under the plaintiff.

¶53

16. The learned 1^st appellate court recorded that as per the settled position of law, the plaintiff has to prove his case, and that the correction slip and the rent receipt do not prove that there was partition between the parties by metes and bounds. It was also observed that both the parties claimed the property to be their

¶54

5

¶55

2026:JHHC:3777

¶56

ancestral property. The 1^st appellate court ultimately recorded that there is no permissive possession or licensor-licensee relationship between the parties, but this fact was not properly considered by the learned trial court.

¶57

17. Accordingly, the learned 1^st appellate court decided all the three points of determination against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court.

¶58

18. This Court finds that the plaintiff admittedly did not produce any title documents and was claiming the property only on the basis of correction slip. The plaintiff and the defendant have common ancestor. The exclusive title of the plaintiff was denied by the defendant. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the learned 1st appellate court was right in reversing the judgement of the learned trial court and no perversity in the matter of appreciation of evidence as such has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned 1st appellate court has rightly held that the correction slips, etc. do not constitute document of title.

¶59

19. Accordingly, this appeal is hereby dismissed.

¶60

20. Let a soft copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX/email.

¶61

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶62

11.02.2026

¶63