Second appeal by the State of Bihar against decrees upholding plaintiffs' title over suit land recorded as Anabad Bihar Sarkar. Courts below relied on a 1925 raiyati kabuliyat, compensation Return and rent receipts establishing settlement with and possession by plaintiffs' ancestor since 1925.
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.473 of 2017
======================================================
The State Of Bihar Through Collector, Bhagalpur
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
Both are resident of Ishipur, Baraghat, District Bhagalpur
all are resident of village & P.S. Kahalgaon, District- Bhagalpur
... ... Respondent/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mrs. Sangha Mitra Ghosh, AC to GA-7 For the Respondent/s : Mr. Jitendra Kishore Verma, Advocate Mr. Anjani Kumar, Advocate Mr. Abhishek Kumar Srivastava, Advocate Mr. Ravi Raj, Advocate Mr. Shreyash Goyal, Advocate Ms. Kumari Shreya, Advocate Mr. Abhay Nath, Advocate Mr. Yash, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KHATIM REZA ORAL ORDER
19 04-07-2024 This Second Appeal has been filed by the defendant/appellant against the judgment and decree of affirmance.
Patna High Court SA No.473 of 2017(19) dt.04-07-2024 2/7
the survey entry made in the name of defendant/appellant is illegal improper and not binding on the plaintiffs/respondents. The suit was decreed by the learned Munsif, Kahalgaon, Bhagalpur by judgment and decree dated 06.06.2016 against which the State of Bihar, defendant/appellant filed Title Appeal No. 77 of 2016 which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge-VI, Bhagalpur by its judgment and decree dated 15.04.2017, which is under challenge in the instant Second Appeal.
Patna High Court SA No.473 of 2017(19) dt.04-07-2024 3/7
compensation Return in respect of revenue Thana No. 267, Touzi No. 282 P.S. Kahalgaon, Dist. Bhagalpur bearing Khata No. 50, Plot No. 1253 area 4.12 acres, plot no. 1315 area 2.69 acres and Khata No. 182 plot no. 1261 area 1 acre. It is also pleaded that during the recent revisional survey, new Khata No. 285, new Plot No. 341, 169 has been carved out from old khata no. 50, plot no. 1253 and 1315 area 2.69 acres and 4.12 acres respectively admeasuring total area 6.81 acres which was wrongly recorded in the revisional survey khatiyan as Anabad Bihar Sarkar. Further case of the plaintiffs is that plaintiff nos. 1 & 2 are by profession jajmans and they remained out of Kahalgaon for their livelihood and therefore, due to no knowledge of survey entry, they could not prove their claim earlier. It came to their knowledge in the month of February, 2014, when they heard in the locality about such entry made in the name of defendant. It is further pleaded that plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land since 1925 and defendants accepted Return filed by the ex-landlord in which the name of the ancestor of plaintiffs is mentioned as raiyati. After getting knowledge about such revisional survey entry on 20.07.2014, they went to Halqa Karmachari to obtain rent receipt, but he refused to grant rent receipt because the land is recorded in the
Patna High Court SA No.473 of 2017(19) dt.04-07-2024 4/7
name of State of Bihar and without correction, no receipt can be granted and he also threatened that government is going to settle the suit land to the landless persons. After service of notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaintiffs filed the present suit.
Patna High Court SA No.473 of 2017(19) dt.04-07-2024 5/7
State of Bihar became owner. The revisional survey of the suit land was done in the year 1977 in the name of State of Bihar which is legal and proper. Therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief as claimed by them in respect of the suit land.
Patna High Court SA No.473 of 2017(19) dt.04-07-2024 6/7
and thereafter their continued possession prior to vesting of Zamindari in the State of Bihar and thereafter also apart from the fact that the Return was also filed by ex-landlord in the name of Kedar Nath Joshi who is ancestor of the plaintiffs. It is apparent from the record that the plaintiffs have paid rent to the ex-landlord and thereafter to the State of Bihar. Testimonies of P.Ws, plaintiffs have established their continued possession till the filing of the suit. It has been further held that the defendant has controverted the pleadings of the plaintiffs and has contended that the documents adduced by the plaintiffs are forged one but the defendant has not come up with any lawful, cogent and convincing evidence so as to enable the court to disbelieve the document put forward by the plaintiffs in evidence.
Patna High Court SA No.473 of 2017(19) dt.04-07-2024 7/7
to 2/B) in favour of plaintiffs which could not be proved by the defendant/State of Bihar as forged document. On the basis of the raiyati kabuliyat dated 26.12.1925 (Exhibit-5), Jamabandi No. 661 issued by the ex-landlord and Register-D Touzi No. 282 (Exhibit-9), the plaintiffs have established their case of title and continued possession over the suit land since 1925 and the suit is within the prescribed period of limitation from the date of knowledge of the entry in the revisional survey khatiyan as well as on receiving threatening from the halqa karmchari.
(Khatim Reza, J)
premchand/-
U
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the judgment and decree affirming the plaintiffs' title based on a 1925 raiyati kabuliyat raised any substantial question of law warranting consideration in second appeal.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
The State of Bihar through Collector, Bhagalpur
Pashupati Nath Joshi
Jai Prakash Joshi
Sanjay Joshi
Bishnu Joshi
Rekha Sharma
Khatim Reza
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
