Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1036 (JHR)

Muchi Ram Mahato v. Santish Mahato

2014-10-14

D.N.UPADHYAY

body2014
ORDER : Heard the parties. 2. This Appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and decree dated 19.08.2008 and 30.08.2008 respectively, passed and signed by Additional Judicial Commissioner, Fast Track Court, Khunti in connection with Title Appeal No. 65/2004 whereby Judgment dated 24.07.2004 and Decree dated 06.08.2004, passed and signed by learned Munsif, Khunti in connection with Title Partition Suit No. 19 of 1999, has been affirmed and the appeal stood dismissed. 3. The appellants (hereinafter referred as defendents) were defendants in the original Title Partition Suit No. 19 of 1999 whereas respondents (hereinafter referred as plaintiffs) were plaintiffs in the said Title Partition Suit filed in the Court of Munsif, Khunti. It appears that the plaintiff had filed a suit for partition in the Court of Munsif claiming 1/3rd share in favour of plaintiffs no. 1 and 2, 1/3rd share in favour of plaintiff no. 3 and rest 1/3rd share in favour of defendants in the suit property. 4. The case of the plaintiffs is that the land measuring an area of 3.69 Acres out of R.S. Plot No. 626 of village Janumpiri was settled by virtue of Hukumnama dated 10.02.1945 by Manki Khetro Mohan Singh. It is further case of the plaintiffs that they reclaimed adjoining plot near their settled land and prepared the same for cultivation as Korkar and after that they came in possession of total area of 5.45 acres. In the latest survey which was in process, the landlord Manki Fani Bhushan Singh managed to get the suit land recorded in his khata as Gairmajurua. When parties to the suit came to know about the entry so recorded, they filed objection and proceeding under Section 83 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act was initiated. The Revenue Officer recorded that there is unity of title in the suit land and held in his order that Muchiram Mahato and Haripado (both sons of Lakshman Mahato) will have one share. Duti Mahato and Motilal, both sons of Sidam Mahto (plaintiffs no. 1 and 2) will have one share and Dilip Mahato, son of Chaita Mahato will have one share in the property. 5. Duti Mahato and Motilal, both sons of Sidam Mahto (plaintiffs no. 1 and 2) will have one share and Dilip Mahato, son of Chaita Mahato will have one share in the property. 5. Being aggrieved by the orders of Revenue Officer passed under Section 83 of Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as CNT Act), Muchi Ram and others filed Revision under Section 89 of the CNT Act before the Settlement Officer and there also the Settlement Officer ordered that the names of the parties be mentioned in the latest Khata as per their share. The report of Amin was also indicating a fact that there is unity of title amongst the parties regarding the said land. 6. On the other hand the defendants have claimed that the land measuring an area of 3.69 Acres was settled in the name of their father Lakshman Mahato on 26.09.1945 (Ext. C) by virtue of Hukumnama granted by General Manager, Encumbered Estate, Ranchi. Rent for these lands were regularly paid by the defendants. The part of the land in suit got irrigation facility and canal Parcha has been regularly issued by the concerned Department in the name of Lachu @ Lakshman Mahato and water tax too was paid by the defendants. Though Hukumnama was granted for 3.69 Acres of land but the defendants reclaimed more or less 5.45 Acres of land without any objection from any quarter and brought the same under their ownership by enjoying cultivation and possession. Apart from that further case of the defendants is that they acquired good and valid title by reason of said settlement held in favour of their father. They have perfected their title by adverse possession openly and adversely to the knowledge of all including plaintiffs and their predecessor in interest for more than 50 years. 7. The defendants have made out a case that genealogy of so-called settlees given in Schedule – A of the plaint is incomplete because Lal Mahato had five sons. The said land was never settled by any Hukumnama in favour of Sidam and Chaita rather it was settled in the name of Lakshman @ Lachu (father of defendants). 8. 7. The defendants have made out a case that genealogy of so-called settlees given in Schedule – A of the plaint is incomplete because Lal Mahato had five sons. The said land was never settled by any Hukumnama in favour of Sidam and Chaita rather it was settled in the name of Lakshman @ Lachu (father of defendants). 8. The learned Munsif, after considering evidence and documents brought on record by the parties has held that there is unity of title and possession for the suit land and decreed the suit directing to carve out 1/3rd share from the suit land jointly in favour of the defendants. 9. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the Judgment and Decree passed by learned Trial Court, the defendants preferred an appeal before the lower appellate court vide Title Appeal No. 65/2004 and the Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court has been affirmed. There is concurrent finding of both the lower courts on the issues involved. 10. I have gone through the Judgments passed by the lower courts from which it appears that the issues involved and framed have been rightly dealt with and both the Courts have properly discussed evidence and documents available on record. Both the lower courts have disbelieved the Hukumnama alleged to be granted in favour of Lachu @ Lakshman Mahato (father of the defendants) on 26.09.1945 and considered it to be forged and fabricated and for that proper reasonings have been given by both the Courts. It is discussed that rent receipts were issued prior to the issuance of Hukumnama in favour of Lakshman Mahato and therefore, those rent receipts were disbelieved. The learned Additional Judicial Commissioner has elaborately discussed that in absence of permission from the Deputy Commissioner, grant of Hukumnama by the General Manager, Encumbered Estate, Ranchi in favour of Lakshman Mahato was not a valid document and he was not authorised to do so. The Manager was appointed under the Chhotanagpur Encumbered Estate Act and the power of the Manager to grant lease under Section 17 of the Act is not an absolute power but subject to limitation imposed by the Rules framed under Section 19 of the Act. The Manager was appointed under the Chhotanagpur Encumbered Estate Act and the power of the Manager to grant lease under Section 17 of the Act is not an absolute power but subject to limitation imposed by the Rules framed under Section 19 of the Act. Rule 16 framed under Section 19 imposes a preliminary condition to the exercise of the jurisdiction of the Manager to grant lease and any settlement made by the Manager in derogation of Rule 16 would be void and without jurisdiction. 11. The next important point considered by both the lower courts is that there was a proceeding before the Revenue Officer under Section 83 and 89 of the CNT Act because Premanand Singh, grand son of Manki Khetro Mohan Singh has raised dispute and hence case under Section 83 and 89 of the CNT Act were taken up. The dispute arising out of entry in the record of right were taken care under Sections 83 and 89 of the CNT Act and were finally decided in favour of the parties to the suit. The defendants were parties to the proceeding before the Revenue Court but they never put forth their claim over the suit land on the basis of Hukumnama alleged to be granted in favour of Lakshman Mahato @ Lachu Mahato on 26.09.1945. They have clearly admitted the existence of Hukumnama dated 10.02.1945 and joint possession of parties over the suit land. 12. Since findings of both the lower courts are based on sound reasoning after proper discussions of evidence and documents available on record, I do not find that any substantial question of law is involved to be decided in this second appeal. 13. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this appeal and as such the same stands dismissed.