Second appeal filed by plaintiffs challenging dismissal of title suit regarding disputed ancestral land. The High Court held that the dispute was factual, no substantial question of law existed, and the appeal was dismissed without adjudication on merits.
Appeal dismissed at the threshold for want of substantial question of law.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Second Appeal No.40 of 2012
======================================================
Versus
.... .... Respondent/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh & Mr. Rajive Ranjan Singh.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER
Patna High Court SA No.40 of 2012 (4)
2 / 12
Order 41 Rule 11 of the Code.
Patna High Court SA No.40 of 2012 (4)
3 / 12
ownership and possession over the said ancestral land. Old Plot No. 3802 measuring 34 decimal situated in the same mouza was „Gairmajarwa Malik Land‟ vested in the State of Bihar. This land was taken in settlement for agricultural purposes by the plaintiff no.1 ( father of appellant nos. 1 and 2) and was recorded in the name of plaintiff No.1 Sadhi Mandal in Register II. Plot No. 3802, according to the plaintiffs‟ case, was adjacent to Plot No. 3800. The plaintiffs asserted that they had been in continuing possession over the said property since before 1964 and the plaintiffs had got complete indefeasible title over the plot Nos. 3802 and 3800 measuring 34 decimal and 4 decimals respectively total being 38 decimal.
Patna High Court SA No.40 of 2012 (4)
4 / 12
old Plot No. 3802 and 2 decimal of land of old Plot no. 3800 belonging to the plaintiffs had been wrongly recorded in the name of defendant second party who according to the plaintiffs was a fictitious person and had no interest in the said land measuring 12 decimal.
The plaintiffs‟ further pleaded that one Moti Bhagat and Mahedi Bhagat had filed title Suit vide no. 138 of 1978 against the plaintiffs with respect to new plot No. 9390. The plaintiffs claimed title and possession over the entire plot No. 3802 which was upheld by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Bhagalpur in the said suit. The present suit was thus, filed with a grievance that the defendants
Patna High Court SA No.40 of 2012 (4)
5 / 12
though initially had agreed for executing a Bazidawanama in respect of the said plot but thereafter they started disturbing the plaintiffs‟ possession and the plaintiff was thus left with no option but to file the suit.
Patna High Court SA No.40 of 2012 (4)
6 / 12
Plot no. 3802 had been wrongly included in R.S. plot No. 9388 recorded in the three defendants.
Patna High Court SA No.40 of 2012 (4)
7 / 12
been included in R.S. Plot No. 9389. The defendants pleaded they had been coming in possession over the suit property and they had perfect title over the same.
pleadings of the parties framed altogether six issues including issue Nos. 3 and 4 of which are being quoted hereinbelow:-
4. Whether the entry made in the survey record of right with respect to the suit land is wrong?”
Patna High Court SA No.40 of 2012 (4)
8 / 12
Learned trial court decided issue nos. 3 and 4 against the plaintiffs.
“1. Whether 10 decimal disputed land of R.S. Plot No. 9388 as mentioned in Schedule A of the plaint and 2 decimal land of R. S. Plot No. 9389 as mentioned in Schedule B of the plaint have been carved out from C.S. Plot No. 3802 and 3800 respectively or the same have been carved out from C.S. plot No. 3799 and 3801 recorded in the name of the defendants? 2. Whether the plaintiffs have got title over the suit land?
3. Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Court below are sustainable or not?”
Patna High Court SA No.40 of 2012 (4)
9 / 12
that point no.1 as formulated by the first appellate Court was in fact the main point in dispute between the parties. After dealing in detail the respective evidence of the parties learned first appellate Court concurred with the finding of fact arrived at by the learned trial Court that the plaintiffs miserably failed to prove the fact that the disputed land i.e. 10 decimal of land of R.S. plot No. 9388 and 2 decimal of R.S. Plot No. 9389 had been carved out from old Plot No. 3802 and 3800 respectively. On the basis of assessment of the evidence on record learned first appellate Court came to a finding that disputed R.S. Plot No. 9388 and 9389 had been carved out from Old Plot No. 3799 and 3801.
Patna High Court SA No.40 of 2012 (4)
10 / 12
favour of their ancestor by the State Government, they could not bring on record any chit of paper to prove the factum of settlement.
“1. Whether the Courts below are right in saying that Plot No. 9388 and 3799 have been carved out from Plot No. 3801 and 3989 without comparing the C.S. Khatiyan?
2. Whether the Courts below are right in relying upon Exhibit „C‟ a Sketch Map, prepared by private Amin?
3. Whether the Court of appeal below is right in saying that plaintiffs have no right and title in respect of plot No. 3802 where there is no issue with regard to plot No. 3802?
4. Whether an issue with regard to the measurement of the disputed land afresh was imperative viewing the nature of litigation? 5. Whether the Bazidawanama executed by respondents got legal basis?”
by the Courts below, I am of the view that the Courts below
Patna High Court SA No.40 of 2012 (4)
11 / 12
has reached to their findings on the basis of their appreciation of evidence on record. It is not the case of the appellants that learned first appellate Court decided the issue/points against the evidence available on record or the concurrent findings arrived at by the Courts below are without any evidence. No such substantial question of law has been raised by learned counsel for the appellants in course of argument or even in the memo of appeal. The concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Courts below can be interfered in exercise of power under Section 100 of the Code only if the findings of the Courts below are shown to be perverse or involving such substantial questions of law which is not only debatable, not previously settled by the law of land or a binding precedent but must also have a material hearing on the decision of the case. The dispute in the present case is purely of fact as to whether the 10 decimals of disputed land of R.S. Plot No. 9388 as mentioned in Schedule A of the plaint and 2 decimals of land of R.S. Plot No. 9389 as mentioned in Schedule B of the plaint had been carved out from C.S. Plot No. 3799 and 3801
Patna High Court SA No.40 of 2012 (4)
12 / 12
recorded in the name of appellants and whether the appellants had title over the suit. The appellants/plaintiffs claimed title over 34 decimals of old Plot No. 3802 on the basis of settlement made by the Government of Bihar but the appellants could not bring on record any document to prove settlement. I do not find any infirmity in the reasoning assigned by the Courts below in their respective judgments.
(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J)
Arun Kumar/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the findings of the Courts below regarding the origin of the disputed land are perverse or involve no material question of law?
Whether the appellants have title over the suit properties without documentary proof of government settlement?
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Anandi Mandal @ Gujali Mandal
Siya Ram Mandal
Rameshwar Mandal
Kesri Mandal
Sita Ram Saw
Subodh Saw
Chakradhari Sharan Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
