Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 214 (JHR)

Anand Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2019-01-22

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

body2019
ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. Ayush Aditya, counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants. 2. This Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 03.08.2011, decree signed on 17.08.2011 by the learned District Judge, in Title Appeal No. 18 of 2010, dismissing the appeal and conforming the judgment dated 31.03.2010 and Decree dated 20.04.2010 passed by learned Subordinate Judge-IV, Giridih in Title Suit No. 218 of 1993. 3. The plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration of the occupancy raiyati right over the suit property described in Schedule A & B of the plaint and in case of dispossession during the pendency of the suit Khas possession of the suit property. 4. The specific case of the plaintiffs was that in the end of 19th century, the suit lands were highly encumbered and by government no litigation came under encumbered estate and one Babu Krishan Chandra Ghosh was appointed as Manager. For agricultural and piscicultural purposes tracs of uncultivated lands were setteled by registered patta dated 26.07.1897 with fixed rents (Ext 1) to Babu Sharat Chandra Tah, who came in possession of the property and became owner of the suit land. In the meantime, the cadastral survey started and bhinds and a pond were allotted Plot No.135, 139 and 140 within Khata No. 81, mauja-Giridih, Thana-229, P.S. Giridih Pargana, District- Hazaribagh (now Giridih) showing the above plots in possession of Babu Sharat Chandra Tah as Mokararri-dar (occupancy raiyat) rent fixed by pattas. 5. After vesting of the Jamabandi interest under the provisions of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, a return was filed by the ex-landlord in which Schedule-A besides others were shown in the possession of Santosh Kumar Tah defendant of Babu Sharat Chandra Tah as a raiyat. Accordingly, Jamabandi was created in the name of Santosh Kumar Tah and the State Government started realizing rent and granted rent receipt as settllee from ex-intermediary. Santosh Kumar Tah during his lifetime, sold various portions of land and after his death Amiya Kumar Tah also exercise his rights and transferred property to different persons. So far as Schedule-A property is concerned, the same were sole by Amiya Kumar Tah in favour of the plaintiffs by virtue of registered sale deed dated 11.03.1976. Santosh Kumar Tah during his lifetime, sold various portions of land and after his death Amiya Kumar Tah also exercise his rights and transferred property to different persons. So far as Schedule-A property is concerned, the same were sole by Amiya Kumar Tah in favour of the plaintiffs by virtue of registered sale deed dated 11.03.1976. The specific case of the plaintiffs was that the plaintiffs being a purchaser from a settllee from the ex-intermediary, became a raiyat in respect of the Schedule-A property and that the name of the plaintiffs was also mutated by the order dated 30.09.1985 and the rent was paid to the State till 1993-94. 6. However, a proceeding under Section 4(g) of Bihar Lands Reform Act, 1950 was initiated by Additional Collector, Giridih bearing No. 01 of 1976-77, which was ultimately dropped and subsequently an order dated 24.05.1993 was passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih for removal of enforcement over the scheduled-A properties at the instance of defendant no. 4. Initially a writ petition was filed before the High Court which was numbered as C.W.J.C. No. 1863 of 1993 (R). The Hon’ble High Court by order dated 11.08.1993 quashed the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih, in so far as the same related to plot no. 135 and 140 with an observation that if the defendant state is not satisfied it may institute a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession, if they so desire. However, in the meantime, the defendants started disturbing the possession of the plaintiffs which ultimately led to filing of the title suit before the trial court. Defendant nos. 1 to 3 were the authorities of the State who filed their written statement and contended the suit. Defendant no. 4 also filed a written statement contending that the tank and the bhind were all used by the general public and therefore the plaintiffs cannot have any exclusive right, title and interest over the same. 7. The learned trial Court framed the following issues for consideration:- (i) Whether the suit is maintainable? (ii) Whether plaintiffs have adequate cause of action to the suit? (iii) Whether the suit is under valued and adequate court fee has not been paid? (iv) Whether value of the suit property at market rate is exceeding Rs. 5 lacs? (v) Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is barred by provisions of specific relief Act? (ii) Whether plaintiffs have adequate cause of action to the suit? (iii) Whether the suit is under valued and adequate court fee has not been paid? (iv) Whether value of the suit property at market rate is exceeding Rs. 5 lacs? (v) Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is barred by provisions of specific relief Act? (vi) Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is hit by Order 7 Rule 11 CPC? (vii) Whether the suit is barred by limitation and principles of adverse possession? (viii) Whether the suit is barred by estoppel, acquiescence and waiver? (ix) Whether other purchasers from Santosh Kumar Tah and Amiyo Kumar Tah are necessary parties to the suit? (x) Whether the description of the suit land in Schedule A & B of the plaint is right? (xi) Whether the lands appertaining to khata no. 81, plot no. 135, 139 & 140 of mauja-Giridih included in the alleged settlement is valid, genuine and permanent? (xii) Whether Babu Sharat Chandra Tah became exclusive owner of the land on the basis of alleged settlement? (xiii) Whether Babu Sharat Chandra Tah came into exclusive possession of the land by alleged settlement? (xiv) Whether the disputed pond is being used by local people for the purpose of agriculture and by Hindu community for immersion of different idols? (xv) Whether the sale deed dt. 11.03.76 executed by Amiyo Kumar Tah in favour of plaintiffs is valid and genuine? (xvi) Whether the plaintiffs have got any right, title and interest in the disputed land? (xvii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the reliefs as claimed? 8. The issues were decided against the appellants. The appellants filed appeal and the appellate authority formulated the following points for determination:- (i) Whether on the strength of registered patta (Ext. 1) any Raiyati Right or occupancy raiyati right was acquired by the setlee Babu Sarad Chandra Tah? (ii) Whether Babu Santosh Kumar Tah and his son Amiya Kumar Tah ever got the status of occupancy raiyat over the suit land? (iii) Whether the plaintiffs/appellants have got any right, title interest and possession over the suit land on the basis of registered sale deed dt. 11.03.1976 (i.e. Ext 4/f)? (iv) Whether the suit property vested in the State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) after abolition of Jamabandi and commencement of Bihar Land Reforms Act by virtue of Section 3 thereof? 9. (iii) Whether the plaintiffs/appellants have got any right, title interest and possession over the suit land on the basis of registered sale deed dt. 11.03.1976 (i.e. Ext 4/f)? (iv) Whether the suit property vested in the State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) after abolition of Jamabandi and commencement of Bihar Land Reforms Act by virtue of Section 3 thereof? 9. All points were decided against the appellants and the appeal was dismissed. 10. Counsel for the appellants while advancing his argument in the second appeal, has submitted that both the learned courts below have erred in interpreting Exhibits 2 & 5, while passing the judgment and deciding the issues against the appellants. He submits that Ext. 2 is the Khatiyan in which the nature of possession has been shown as Mokarrari-dar (occupancy raiyat), which means a permanent lease, so the plaintiffs rightly claimed title over the property on the basis of Exhibit-2. So far as the Ext. 5 is concerned, he submits that the same was the Jamindari return, which was coupled with Jamindari rent receipt and rent receipt issued by the State. Accordingly, by virtue of issuance of rent receipt the plaintiffs had acquired the status of raiyati settllee. 11. Counsel for the appellants has relied upon a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in [2016] SCCR 665 (Haryana State And Another vs. Gram Panchayat Village Kalehri) and referred to para 15 of the said judgment and submits that it has been held that where the court is required to properly interprete the nature of documents, it only involves legal issue based on admitted documents. Accordingly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that, in such circumstances, a question of law would be involved. He further submits that in the judgment passed by Hon’ble Patna High Court reported in AIR 1968 PATNA 302, it has been held that the possession coupled with rent receipt is a sufficient proof to establish a right over the property. 12. After hearing the counsel for the appellants and after going through the impugned orders passed by both the learned courts below, this Court finds that the learned trial court considered all the documents filed by the appellants and after considering the same, with particular reference to Ext. 12. After hearing the counsel for the appellants and after going through the impugned orders passed by both the learned courts below, this Court finds that the learned trial court considered all the documents filed by the appellants and after considering the same, with particular reference to Ext. 1 i.e. registered patta dated 26.07.1897 executed by Babu Krishna Chandra Ghosh in favour of Babu Sharat Chandra Tah, held that Babu Sharat Chandra Tah never acquired any raiyati status or a status of occupancy raiyat and accordingly no such right could be acquired by subsequent sale deed dated 11.03.1976. 13. This court is of the considered view that the entries in record of right or mere issuance of rent receipt by itself do not create or extinguish any title over the property. In the instant case, the basic document on the basis of which the plaintiffs had claimed title over the property was Ext. 1 i.e. registered patta dated 26.07.1897 and by considering the registered patta both the learned courts below have clearly held that by virtue of this patta Babu Sharat Chandra Tah never acquired any raiyati status or status of occupancy right. 14. This Court is of the considered view that the entries in the Khatiyan or the Zamindari return which was marked as Exts. 2 & 5 respectively cannot change the nature of right, which was specifically claimed by the plaintiffs on the basis of registered patta dated 26.07.1897. Therefore, this Court finds that entries in Khatiyan or the entries made in Zamindari return do not have much bearing in the matter. 15. This Court also finds that all the evidences were considered by both the learned courts below, who returned concurrent finding that on the strength of registered patta Ext. 1, Babu Sharat Chandra Tah never acquired any raiyati status or status of occupancy raiyat and also held that no amount of oral evidence can take precedence over the documentary evidence. In such circumstances, this Court does not find any question of law, much less, any substantial question of law involved in this case, calling for admission of this Second Appeal. In such circumstances, this Court does not find any question of law, much less, any substantial question of law involved in this case, calling for admission of this Second Appeal. So far as the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which has been relied upon by the appellants is concerned, this court finds that the same has no bearing in the matter, as the entire claim of the appellants is on the basis of the registered patta dated 26.07.1897 and it is not the case of the appellants that the registered patta has not been properly considered by the learned courts below. This court is of the considered view that even if Exhibit 2 and 5 are concerned, appellants do not have a case. Further, admittedly Exhibit 2 and 5 were considered by both the learned courts below. 16. So far as the Judgment of Hon’ble Patna High Court reported in AIR 1968 PATNA 302 is concerned, the same also does not help the appellants in any manner, as in the said case the party was claiming right, title, interest and possession over the property by virtue of unregistered lease. It was held that although the unregistered lease cannot be admissible in evidence, but can certainly be used for the purpose of proving the nature of possession. Here, in the instant case, the claim of the Plaintiff was on the basis of a registered patta dated 26.07.1897 and accordingly the right, title and interest will certainly flow from the right conferred by the registered patta and no other documents or evidences can supplement such a right of the plaintiffs. 17. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, there being no substantial question of law involved in this case, this appeal is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.