Badri Mahto Vs Mano Devi

Sonu Mahto, aged about 36 years, son of Late Bangali Mahto 10.Dashrath Mahto, aged about 50 years 11.Kashi Mahto, aged about 60 years, 12. Arjun Prasad Mehta, aged about 64 years All sons of late Ghaman Mahto.

¶15

13.Bilash Devi, aged about 57 years D/o-Late Ghaman Mahto. All residents of village Bihari, Post-Padma, P.s-Barhi, DistrictHazaribagh.

¶16

14.Bangali Mahto, aged about 62 years, son of Late Sewa Mahto. 15. Jagdish Mahto, aged about 60 years, Son of Late Chhathu Mahto 16. Urmila Devi, aged about 49 years, Daughter of Late Chhathu Mahto

¶17

17.Parmeshwar Mahto, aged about 64 years, 18.Narayan Mahto, aged about 58 years, both sons of late Bhagi Mahto All residents of village Mahkol, Post-padma, P.s-Barhi, DistrictHazaribagh

¶18

… … Defendants/Appellants/Appellants Versus

¶19

Mano Devi wife of Prabhu Ravidas

¶20

Prabhu Ravidas, son of Late Chhathu Ravidas, both are residents of village Mahkol, Post-padma, P.s-Barhi, DistrictHazaribagh

¶21

… … Plaintiffs/Respondents/Respondents --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶22

--For the Appellants : Mr. Ashim Kr. Sahani, Advocate For the Respondents : ---

¶23

C.A.V. On 27.02.2026 Pronounced on 01.06.2026

¶24

2026:JHHC:15890

¶25

1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 29.08.2025 (decree sealed and signed on 11.09.2025) passed by learned Principal District Judge, Hazaribagh in Civil Appeal (Title) No. 39 of 2024 confirming the judgment and decree dated 29.02.2024 (decree sealed and signed on 07.03.2024) passed by learned Civil, Judge (Junior Division) Munsif, Hazaribagh in Title Suit No. 96 of 2005.

¶26

2. The title suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs and the judgment in title suit was confirmed by the learned 1^st appellate court. Consequently, the defendants are the appellants before this Court.

¶27

3. The suit was filed seeking declaration that the plaintiff No.1 has right and title over the property mentioned in schedule ‘A’ of the plaint. Further relief was prayed that possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land be confirmed and alternatively, if the plaintiffs are found dispossessed during the pendency of the suit, the possession of the suit land be restored to the plaintiffs.

¶28

4. The description of the suit land is mentioned in schedule ‘A’ which is as under:-

¶29

Schedule ‘A’

¶30

The land situated at Mouza Bundu, within Police Station Barhi (Thana No.41), District-Hazaribag.

¶31

Khata	Plot	Area	Total	Boundary
No.	No.		Area
01	115	00.28	00.38	North- Rasta South- Plot No. 116 of Sita Sharan Pandey East- Niz Remaining portion of plot No. 115 of Sita Sharan Pandey West- Area of plot No.2 of Sita Sharan Pandey

¶32

5. The perusal of the description of the suit land reveals that the property is situated in Mouza Bundu under Thana No. 41, in DistrictHazaribag under Khata No. 1, plot No. 115 area 0.28 acre and boundaries have been provided. The plaint also gives the description

¶33

2

¶34

2026:JHHC:15890

¶35

and area of the property and as per the plaint, the schedule A property is the property covered by registered sale deed dated 17.08.1999.

¶36

6. Arguments of the appellants

¶37

7. Learned counsel for the appellants has referred to the suggested substantial questions of law nos. (A), (C) and (D) which are as under:

¶38

“A. Whether both the impugned judgments are vitiated on account of non-consideration of the settled principle of law that a person cannot sell better than what he has?

¶39

C. Whether in absence of particulars of the land either in Ext. 5 or in Ext. 6 the learned courts could have presumed that the suit land was part of the sale-deeds?

¶40

D. Whether both the learned courts committed a grave error in overlooking the entry of the name of Sukhram Mahto as raiyat in respect of Khata in question prepared about 90 years back having not been rebutted by the plaintiffs by decreeing the suit?”

¶41

8. The learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that though the appellants have lost in both the courts, but the description of the suit land was not proper and therefore, the suit could not have been decreed in favour of the plaintiffs. He has referred to exhibits- 5 and 6 and has submitted that the exhibits- 5 and 6 relate to Khewat No.2, but the schedule of the property does not refer to Khewat number and therefore, there is improper description of the suit property and this was enough to dismiss the suit.

¶42

9. Case of the plaintiffs

¶43

a) As per the plaint, the plaintiffs have purchased the land measuring 28 decimals out of 38 decimals of plot no. 115 within Khata no. 1 situated at Mouza Bundu, Police station Barhi, District Hazaribag by means of registered sale-deed being no.8229 on 17.08.1999 from the rightful owner Sita Sharan Pandey, son of late Pokhraj Pandey after paying the full consideration amount of Rs.11,000/-. The vendee Mano Devi and her husband Prabhu Ravidas (both plaintiffs) were put in possession of the land, which is the suit land mentioned in detail under Schedule "A" of the plaint. The vendee remained in

¶44

3

¶45

2026:JHHC:15890

¶46

cultivating possession of the suit land and paid rent to the government in token of which, Government Rent Receipts have been issued to her after order of mutation was duly passed. The Zamabandi was opened in her name having entry in the Register-II of the Anchal record.

¶47

b) The vendor Sita Sharan Pandey had purchased the land along with other lands under Khewat no.2 by means of registered sale deed being no. 7277 on 07.11.1952 from Mukteshwar Trigunayat (son of late Janardan Trigunayat) who had purchased the lands from the Ex-landlord of Khewat no.2 namely Pokhraj Pandey and others sons of late Uttim Ram Pandey by means of registered sale-deed being no. 1550 dated 18.07.1934.

¶48

c) The lands were Zirat land of the Ex-landlord as recorded in the khatiyan.

¶49

d) The vendor Sita Sharan Pandey was in possession of the suit land along with other lands so purchased before execution of the sale-deed in favour of the vendee (plaintiff no.1).

¶50

e) The defendants have no right, title or possession on the suit land.

¶51

f) On 10.08.2005 the defendants threatened to dispossess the plaintiffs forcibly for the first time without showing any document. If they (defendants) have any document, it must be forged or illegal and fabricated one having manufactured it in order to grab the suit land belonging to the plaintiffs who are simple and poor Harijan (Schedule Caste).

¶52

10. Case of the defendants.

¶53

I. The suit was not maintainable in its present form. The suit was barred by law of limitation, adverse possession, Law of Specific Relief Act, estoppel, waiver and acquiescence. The suit was bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary party.

¶54

II. Sita Saran Pandey has or had no right, title, interest and possession over the land and the alleged sale deed executed by him is totally forged and fabricated.

¶55

4

¶56

2026:JHHC:15890

¶57

III. The plaintiffs claimed that vendor Sita Saran Pandey had purchased the land from one Mukteshwar Trigunayat which is self-contradictory as Sita Saran Pandey filed a revision before the Commissioner, North Chhotanagpur Division, Hazaribag against Badri Mahto and other defendants, in which Sita Saran Pandey, the vendor of the plaintiffs, stated in his memo of appeal that Mukteshwar Trigunayat sold the land to Sita Saran Pandey, Gendo Pandey and Jogendra Nath Pandey on 07.11.1952 appertaining to the lands of Khata no. 17 and other Khatas under Khewat no. 2. Sita Saran Pandey, Sarda Pandey and Usha Devi D/o Jogendra Nath Pandey executed a deed of sale for an area of 30 decimals each with different recitals. Sita Saran Pandey got the land by virtue of registered deed of sale, Sarda Prasad Pandey got the land by virtue of ancestral property and Usha Devi D/o Yogendra Nath Pandey got the lands by virtue of settlement. The contradictory sale deed itself prove that Mukteshwar Trigunayat had neither title nor possession over the lands of Khata no. 1, 17 and other khatas under Khewat no. 2 and, if any sale deed has been executed by him in favour of any person, the same is based on false and forged documents.

¶58

IV. Khata no. 1 stands recorded in the name of Sukhram Mahto in the survey record of right and after the death of Sukhram Mahto his legal heirs are in possession over the land of khatas no. 1 and enjoying the same without any hindrance from any corner which is known to the whole world including the plaintiffs.

¶59

V. Sita Saran Pandey also filed a rent assessment appeal bearing No. 59 of 2003 against these defendants appertaining to the lands of Khata no. 1 plot no. 86, 113, 115 and 117 against the order dated 04.11.2000 passed by the S.D.M., Barhi which was still sub-judiced before the court of D.C, Hazaribag which proves the case of the defendants that they are in possession over the land of khata no. 1, plot no. 115 and other plots hence, any sale deed executed by Sita Saran Pandey in favour of any person is beyond his jurisdiction.

¶60

5

¶61

2026:JHHC:15890

¶62

VI. The land was never resumed by the ex-landlord and name of Sukhram Mahto was entered in survey record of right in the year 1911 and 1912. Hence resumption of land as Khewat no. 2 by the ex-landlord and any sale deed executed by the exlandlord to any person is totally forged and fabricated.

¶63

VII. Sita Saran Pandey was never in possession over the suit land alongwith other lands and the suit land was in possession of the defendants and the defendants were cultivating the same and have also constructed a house and a well over the land.

¶64

VIII. It was denied that the defendants threatened the plaintiffs on 10.08.2005. Rather, the defendants were in possession over the suit land for more than 90 years, hence no cause of action arose on 10.08.2005.

¶65

11. Both the parties produced oral and documentary evidences.

¶66

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

¶67

i. Is the suit maintainable?

¶68

ii. Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation or adverse possession or principle of Estoppel, waiver or acquiescence?

¶69

iii. Whether the suit is barred by law of provision of Specific Relief Act?

¶70

iv. Whether the plaintiff no.1 has right and title over the suit land?

¶71

v. Whether the plaintiff no.1 has possession over the suit land?

¶72

vi. That the plaintiff no.1 is entitled to restoration of possession of the suit land if she is found dispossessed during pendency of the suit?

¶73

vii. Whether the plaintiffs have any cause of action for the suit?

¶74

viii. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to any relief?

¶75

13. The suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs and the learned 1^st appellate court dismissed the 1^st appeal. Both the courts have examined oral and documentary evidences.

¶76

14. The learned trial court, after discussing all the materials on record and while specifically considering the issue No. iv, v and vi

¶77

6

¶78

2026:JHHC:15890

¶79

and issue nos. i and ii has recorded findings in paragraph 15 and 17 which are as under: -

¶80

“ 15. These three issues are important issue for the suit and for proving the above issues, the burden of proof is upon the plaintiff so she has brought on record oral and documentary evidence, which I have discussed above and I found that P.W.2 and P.W.-3 have supported the case of plaintiff entirely in their cross examination. P.W.4 is plaintiff herself, who has also supported her case. Now come to documentary evidence of plaintiff. First is Exhibit-7 which is khewat of Bundu Mouza having khewat No.2 in the name ancestors of Sita Sharan Pandey (vendor of plaintiff). Exhibit-6 is certified copy of sale deed dated 1550 of 21.07.1934 executed by Pokhraj Pandey S/o Uttim Pandey to Babu Mukhteshwar Trigunayat for the entire mouza of Bundu (Barhi) and Turi (Ichak) having khewat No.2, on receiving consideration amount of 10000/- rupees. Further Exhibit-5 is Certified copy of sale deed 7277 dated 07.11.1952 executed by one Mukhteshwar Trigunayat S/o Babu Janardhan Trigunayat to Sita Sharan Pandey S/o Babu Pokhraj Pandey for the entire mouza of Bundu (Barhi) and Turi (Ichak) having khewat No. 2 on receiving consideration amount of 5000/- rupees and in the recital of this sale deed, it has mentioned that Mukhteshwar Trigunayat had purchased the entire land of Bundu and Turi village (entire khewat 2) from the father of Sita Sharan Pandey namely Babu Pokhraj Ram Pandey by registered kewala dt. 18.4.1934 which was admitted and registered on 21.07.1934. Further Ext. 1 is original sale deed no. 8229 dt. 11.09.1999 Executed by Sita Saharan Pandey to Mano Devi (Plaintiff) for the land of khata no. 1, plot no.115, mouza-Bundu, area 0.28 decimal out of 0.38 decimal, Thana- Barhi, Hazaribag on receiving consideration amount of 11,000/- rupees. In the recital of this deed it has mentioned that vendor Sita Sharan Pandey has got this land vide sale deed no. 7277 dt. 7.11.52 (Ext. 5) executed by one Mukhteshwar Trigunayat having boundary mentioned as:

¶81

N Road, S- Plot no. 116 of Sita Sharan Pandey (Niz Bikreta), E- NIZ remaining portion of plot no. 115 of Sita Sharan Pandey W- Aar of plot no. 2 of Sita Sharan Pandey (Niz Bikreta). The same boundary mentioned in in the present sale deed. Thereafter mutation has done in favour of plaintiff no.1 having Mutation case no. 591/99-2000 and government rent receipts has started issuing in her name from 2000. (Ext. 2 to 2/c).

¶82

7

¶83

2026:JHHC:15890

¶84

Further defendants claimed in their written statement and it has also came in the deposition of their witnesses that khatiyan has prepared in name of their ancestor namely Sukhram Mahto but on perusal of Ext. L of defendant, which is khatiyan of khata no. 1, 17, 90 of Bundu Mouza, wherein it has mentioned that khata no. 1 is "ZIRAT MALIK" which has defined u/s 118 of CNT, Act 1908, which means privileged land of landlord and the landlord of Bundu mouza was Ishwari Prasad Pandey as mentioned in khatiyani, who is ancestor of Sita Sharan Pandey (vendor of plaintiff). Further, plot no. 115 (under khata no. 1), which is disputed in this suit is also mentioned as ZIRAT having total area 0.38 decimal and in the KABAJWARI" column of khatiyan, the name of defendant's ancestors has not mentioned as claimed by defendants, but it is blank. So it has proved that land of khata no. 1, plot no. 115 of Bundu mouza did not settled in the name of defendant's ancestor Sukhram Mahto but it belongs to Sita Sharan Pandey and their ancestors as plaintiff has brought on record all relevant documents in chronological order and the chain of documents proves that she has purchased the suit land from a right full owner. Hence issues no. (iv), (v) & (vi) are hereby decided in favour of plaintiff.

¶85

17 ….As per the above discussion, it has proved that plaintiff has right, title and possession over the suit land and further defendant failed to brought on record any concrete evidence to show that present suit is barred by any law, so the present suit is maintainable in its present form and Plaintiff had valid cause of action for filing the suit. So issue no. I and II are hereby decided in favour of the Plaintiff.

¶86

So, in the facts and circumstances as discussed above in detail and after considering the case of parties in its totality and also on the basis of conclusion arrived at after deciding the issues I am of the conclusion that plaintiffs has able to prove her case by conclusive proof, hence she is entitled for the above discussed reliefs and now no any other relief or reliefs is left to decide..”

¶87

15. The learned trial court has decided the issue No. (ii) and (iii) by observing that the burden of proof was upon the defendants, but they did not lead any evidence in this regard and there is only general denial in their written statement. Accordingly, these issues were decided in favour of the plaintiffs. While deciding issue No. (i) and

¶88

8

¶89

2026:JHHC:15890

¶90

(ii), the suit was held maintainable and it was held that the plaintiffs had valid cause of action to file the suit.

¶91

16. So far as learned 1^st appellate court is concerned, the following points for determination were framed: -

¶92

I. Whether Respondents/plaintiffs have has right and title over the suit land mentioned in Schedule "A" of the plaint?

¶93

II. Whether the impugned judgment and decree calls for any interference by this appellate court?

¶94

17. Learned 1^st appellate court recorded in paragraph 13 of its judgment that perusal of entire materials available on record revealed that plaintiffs have brought the suit for right, title and interest over the suit property pertaining to khata no.1, plot no. 115, area 0.28 acre out of 0.38 acre. Learned 1^st appellate court after considering all the materials on record has given its finding in paragraph 15, which is as under: -

¶95

“15. Now I go through the documentary evidence of both the parties. Ext.1 and Ext. D are the same document. It is original sale-deed vide no. 8229 dated 17.08.1999 which has been executed by Sita Sharan Pandey to Mano Devi plaintiff no.1 for the land of khata no.1 plot no.115, Mauza Bundu, area 28 decimal out of 38 decimal, Thana Barhi, Hazaribagh on receiving consideration amount of Rs.11,000/-. From perusal of recital sale-deed, it is made clear that, vendor Sita Sharan Pandey has got this land vide sale deed no.7277, dated 07.11.1952 (Ext.5) and Ext.-E executed by one Mukteshwar Trigunayat. The boundary of the suit property mentioned in Ext.1 said to be in suit property is that, North- Road, SouthPlot no.116 of Sita Sharan Pandey, West- Aar of plot no.2 of Sita Sharan Pandey (Niz Bikreta).

¶96

Now I go through the recital of Ext.5 and Ext. E which are the sale deed executed in the year of 1952 in favour of vendor of the plaintiff no. 1 which shows that, entire mauza of khewat no.2, Thana Barhi no.41, Champa, Thana Ichak no. 78. The same boundary of the land has been mentioned in Ext.6 which is certified copy of sale deed no.1550, dated 18.07.1934 it has been executed by Pokhraj Pandey, S/o Uttim Pandey to Babu Mukteshwar Trigunayat on consideration amount of Rs.10,000/-. Therefore, the entire mauza of Bundu has been sold out to Mukteshwar Trigunayat who sold the same land to Sita Sharan Pandey, S/o Babu Pokhraj Pandey in the year 1952. In this way, these three sale-deeds indicates

¶97

9

¶98

2026:JHHC:15890

¶99

that, the land in question has been sold and possessed by Sita Sharan Pandey and neither of the above sale-deed has been challenged before any competent court of civil jurisdiction rather it is still in existence. On the other hand, the claim of appellant/defendant, on the basis of Ext. L which is certified copy of khatiyan of khata no. 1, 17, 90 of Bundu Mouza, the entire oral evidence also goes to show that, the Sukhram Mahto is the khatiyani raiyat of khewat no.2. But from perusal of this document (Ext.L) which made it clear that the name of Ishwar Prasad Pandey has been entered as Jamindar over the said document of khewat no.2. Khata no.1 is mentioned as Zirat Malik which is privilege land of landlord according to Section 118 of CNT Act. It further appears from the record that, Kabajwari column of plot no.115, khewat no.2 shown as blank and the name of ancestor of the defendant has not been mentioned. Now the next document i.e. Ext. 2 to 2/c, these are the government rent receipt, issued in the name of plaintiff Mano Devi for the land of khata no.1, area 28 decimal of Bundu in the year 2000, 2002, 2005 and 2008 and Ext.3 is the certified copy of sale deed no.180/1965, executed by Sharda Prasad Pandey, S/o Bindu Prasad Pandey to Bigan Mahto pertaining to khata no. 1, plot no.105 to 113, area 3.33 acre of Bundu Mauza, but this document is not related to the suit property. Furthermore, Ext.7 is the certified copy of khewat no.2 of village Bundu and Turi mouza. Khewat no.2 which is in the name of Ishwar Prasad Pandey, Pokhraj Pandey, Kano Ram Pandey, Beni Ram Pandey, Bindu Pandey, Uttim Pandey "Ba Hissaa Barabar" and all they have got jointly share which has been obtained from Ramgarh Raja Parasnath Singh on 14.10.1833 Sambat on yearly rent fixed as 29 rupees 11 anna and 9 pai and cess was fixed as 99 rupees. In this way, the name of ancestor of the vendor of the plaintiff no.1 entered in Ext.7.”

¶100

18. This Court finds that the plaintiffs were claiming property on the basis of registered sale deed i.e Exhibit-6 of the year 1934 executed by Pokhraj Pandey S/o Uttim Pandey in favour of Babu Mukhteshwar Trigunayat for the entire mouza of Bundu (Barhi) and Turi (Ichak) having khewat No.2 which was followed by Exhibit-5 i.e. sale deed dated 07.11.1952 executed by one Mukhteshwar Trigunayat S/o Babu Janardhan Trigunayat in favour of Sita Sharan Pandey S/o Babu Pokhraj Pandey for the entire mouza of Bundu (Barhi) and Turi (Ichak) having khewat No. 2. Exhibit-1 is the original sale deed No.

¶101

10

¶102

2026:JHHC:15890

¶103

8229 of the year 1999 which was for khewat No.1, Plot No. 115, Mouza- Bundu, area 0.28 acre out of 0.38 acre, Thana-Barhi, Hazaribag and the previous sale deeds were also mentioned. The sale deed also recorded the boundary.

¶104

19. So far as defendants are concerned, they claimed that the khatiyan was prepared in the name of their ancestor namely Sukhram Mahto, but the learned court found that the name of Sukhram Mahto was only recorded as ‘ Zirat Malik’ which means privileged land of landlord and admittedly, the landlord of the Mouza was Ishwari Prasad Pandey as mentioned in the khatiyan, who is ancestor of Sita Sharan Pandey (vendor of plaintiff no.1) and in the ‘ Kabajwari’ the name of the defendants’ ancestors was not mentioned, but it was blank. On the very fact that the property was ‘Zirat Malik’ and on the basis of materials on record, the learned court recorded that the property was not settled in the name of ancestor of the defendants, but it belonged to Sita Sharan Pandey and all the relevant documents in chronological order and the chain of documents proved that the property was the purchased land of the plaintiffs from the rightful owner.

¶105

20. This Court finds that none of the questions of law, as suggested, arise for consideration by this Court. There was no dispute with regard to identity of the property involved in the case and merely because khewat number was not mentioned in the schedule of the property, the same cannot be said to be fatal with respect to the identity of the suit property. The learned courts, by concurrent findings based on appreciation of materials on record, have held that the vendor of the plaintiff no.1 had the required title to transfer to the plaintiff no.1. Further, both the learned courts have not committed any error while considering the entry of the name of Sukhram Mahto who was shown as ‘ Zirat Malik’ which means privileged land of landlord and admittedly, the landlord of the Mouza was Ishwari Prasad Pandey as mentioned in the khatiyan, who is ancestor of Sita Sharan Pandey (vendor of plaintiff no.1) and in the ‘ Kabajwari’, the name of the defendants’ ancestors was not mentioned, but it was blank. The name

¶106

11

¶107

2026:JHHC:15890

¶108

of Sukhram Mahto was shown as ‘ Zirat Malik’ and not as raiyat and the property was the privileged property of the landlord and even the possession, that is ‘Kabajwari’ was not shown of that of Sukhram Mahto, rather, it was blank. The identity of the property was well defined.

¶109

21. Upon going through the impugned judgment passed by the learned 1^st appellate court, this Court finds that the learned 1^st appellate court has passed a well-reasoned judgment considering the materials on record. No perversity in the point of appreciation of evidence has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants while recording the findings by the learned 1^st appellate court. This court has considered the suggested points for framing substantial question of law as suggested during the course of hearing and in view of the aforesaid discussions, this court is of the considered view that no question of law, much less, any substantial question of law is involved in this 2^nd appeal.

¶110

22. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court finds no merits in this 2^nd appeal, which is hereby dismissed .

¶111

23. Pending Interlocutory application, if any, is closed.

¶112

24. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through ‘e-mail/FAX’.

¶113

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶114

Date of Pronouncement:01.06.2026

¶115

Pankaj