Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1788 (JHR)

Bijay Mundari v. The State of Bihar

2025-08-28

PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

body2025
JUDGMENT : PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The instant second appeal is preferred against the judgment of affirmance, whereby and whereunder, the suit filed by the plaintiff has been dismissed by learned Trial Court and the First Appellate Court has also dismissed the appeal. 3. The appellant/plaintiff instituted Title Suit No.14 of 1990 for declaration of his right, title, interest and confirmation of possession over the suit Schedule A property and also for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land. It is pleaded by the plaintiff that lands appertaining to C.S. Plot Nos.422 and 428 of village Bitapur, appertaining to Khata No.271 belongs to ex-estate of Kharsawan, Babu Kalicharan Prasad Singh Deo who made a permanent settlement of the said land in favour of Siba Mundari and Bisheswar Mundari, father and uncle of the plaintiff respectively through Patta dated 25.02.1937. It is alleged that C.S. Plot No.422 was originally a parti and uncultivable land, which was made cultivable after incurring huge expenses and personal labour by the father and uncle of the plaintiff. Till their live, father and uncle of the plaintiff had cultivated the said land and after vesting of intermediary interest under the provisions Bihar Land Reforms Act , 1950, the rent was paid to the ex-landlord. It is further alleged that during the progress of revisional survey, Bisheswar Mundaru died issueless and his interest over the suit land devolved upon the surviving brother, Siba Mundari, the father of plaintiff. The father of plaintiff has also died immediately after revisional survey and the suit property is held and possessed by the plaintiff. It is further alleged that only 0.30 acres land has been recorded in the name of father and uncle of the plaintiff under Khata No.240 and the rest portions of the suit property has been wrongly and erroneously recorded in the name of State of Bihar and some portion of the land has been settled with defendant, Durlav Mundari by defendant No.1. It is further alleged that local revenue staff started threatening the plaintiff to dispossess from the suit land, hence, the necessity of suit. 4. The defendant No.1, State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) had appeared but did not file any written statement. It is further alleged that local revenue staff started threatening the plaintiff to dispossess from the suit land, hence, the necessity of suit. 4. The defendant No.1, State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) had appeared but did not file any written statement. Defendant No.2 has denied the claim of plaintiff in toto in respect of the suit schedule land and pleaded that the suit is barred by limitation, non-joinder of necessary parties, provisions of C.N.T. Act and Specific Relief Act. It is specifically pleaded that the suit land was parti land of Kharsawan Ruler and after coming into force Bihar Land Reforms Act , 1950, the suit land vested into State of Bihar. After final publication of record of rights in the year 1964, the suit land i.e. Plot Nos.1366 and 1368 and many other plots under Khata No.271 were recorded in the name of State of Bihar as Gair Mazarua land (non-cultivating land). The defendant has got settlement of one acre land in Plot No.1366 and one acre in Plot No.1368 through Settlement Case No.23 of l970-71 by C.O., Kharsawan and Parwana was handed over followed with possession. The suit land as described in the plaint, contentional specific area and boundary and the same are corresponding with Khata and Plots carved out during Revisional Survey Operation. The plaintiff is not in possession of the suit land and no relief for recovery has been sought for, therefore, no question of permanent injunction also arises. 5. On the basis of above pleadings of the parties, learned trial court has settled following issues:- (i) Is the suit as framed maintainable? (ii) Has the plaintiff got any cause of action for the suit? (iii) Is the suit barred by limitation? (iv) Is the suit bad for non-joinder and misjoinder of parties? (v) Is the suit barred under the provisions of specific relief Act? (vi) Is the suit barred under the provisions of C.N.T. Act? (vii) Has the plaintiff right, title, interest and possession over the suit land? (viii) Is the plaintiff entitled to the relief or reliefs, if any, as claimed by the plaintiff? (ix) To what relief or reliefs, if any, is the plaintiff entitled? 6. Learned trial court while deciding the issue No.1 held that the area of suit schedule land shown as 3.38 acres but not corroborated by any documentary evidence led by the plaintiffs. (ix) To what relief or reliefs, if any, is the plaintiff entitled? 6. Learned trial court while deciding the issue No.1 held that the area of suit schedule land shown as 3.38 acres but not corroborated by any documentary evidence led by the plaintiffs. Ext.5, certified copy of R.S. Khatiyan of R.S. Khata No.240, Plot No.1367 area 30 decimals stands in the name of Siba Mundari and Bisheshwar Mundari. It is not proved by the plaintiff that lands appertaining to Khata No.240, Plot Nos.1366 and 1368 have been carved out from C.S. Plot Nos.422 and 428, C.S. Khata No.271. Even, It may be assumed that Ext.5 is part of C.S. Plot Nos.422 and 428 even then R.S. Plot No.1367 does not tally with area as claimed by the plaintiff. Accordingly, this issue was decided against the plaintiff. It was also found that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit land, therefore, threatening to dispossess him by the Revenue Authority and the defendant No.2 does not arise and there is no cause of action to file the suit. It was further found that one brother, Narayan and cousin sister, Bimla of the plaintiff are also necessary party of the suit but not impleaded. Hence, the suit is bad for non-joinder of the necessary party. The learned trial court further held that the plaintiff has failed to prove his possession over the suit schedule land, therefore, cannot claim for permanent injunction. Therefore, the plaintiff has neither title nor possession over the suit land, accordingly, dismissed the suit. 7. The plaintiff preferred an appeal against the judgment of Trial Court vide T.A. No.21 of 1995, the First Appellate Court has also formulated five points for determination and has adjudicated the same. The main findings of the learned First Appellate Court are on the very basis of the claim of plaintiff i.e. original settlement patta (Ext.3). 8. It was observed that the contents of Ext.3 goes to show that the same has been issued on behalf of the Kalicharan Prasad Singh Deo of Kharsawan Estate, who was ex-landlord of Bitapur Mauza but it has been assigned by Jagarnath Chohar as Santri in the Patta dated 25.02.1937. There is no evidence on record to show that Jagarnath Chohar was authorized to issue patta settlement. There is no evidence on record to show that Jagarnath Chohar was authorized to issue patta settlement. The very glaring aspects of the said patta is that it was granted lands of 3 Bhiga, 10 khattas from C.S. Plot No.428 and 2 Bighas from C.S. Plot No.422 in favour of Siba Mundari and Bisheshwar Mundari for making land korkar and converting the paddy growing land for five years. There is no iota of evidence led by the plaintiff that within the said five years, Siba Mundari and Bishweshar Mundari had converted the land into paddy growing lands and thereafter obtained permanent settlement from the ex-landlord. Thus from Ext.3, no right, title and interest was acquired by Siba Mundari and Bisheswar Mundari. The plaintiff has never challenged the settlement in the year 1970-71 dated 16.08.1970 in favour of defendant No.2 by the defendant No.1 and after two decades, the suit was filed. Hence, the suit is barred by limitation under Article- 113 of the Limitation Act, accordingly, dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff/appellant. 9. This second appeal at behest of appellant/plaintiff, which was admitted vide order dated 16.09.2004 on following substantial question(s) of law:- “Whether the courts below misdirected themselves in not properly applying the principle of law in arriving at their findings and passing their judgment and decrees?” 10. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned Trial Court as well as Appellate Court has misinterpreted Ext.3 and arrived at wrong conclusion. Learned Trial Court as well as Appellate Court has erroneously considered that the plaintiff is not in possession due to the order passed in a proceeding under section 114 of Cr.P.C. by S.D.M. and principle of section 42 of Specific Relief Act has also wrongly been applied. The plaintiff has remained all along in possession over the suit land since the date of settlement. The State has filed no written statement and not contested the suit, therefore, he has also perfected his title by adverse possession. Therefore, concurrent findings of courts below are liable to be set aside and this appeal may be allowed. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the appellant/plaintiff has miserably failed to prove the basis of the case (Ext.3) which was never a permanent settlement as pleaded in the plaint. Therefore, concurrent findings of courts below are liable to be set aside and this appeal may be allowed. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the appellant/plaintiff has miserably failed to prove the basis of the case (Ext.3) which was never a permanent settlement as pleaded in the plaint. After coming into force of BLR Act, no return form was filed by ex-landlord and being parti lands of ex-landlord, the said land vested in the State of Bihar (now Jharkhand). Some portions of land has been settled with defendant No.2 and the plaintiff has got no right, title, interest and possession over the suit land, which was rightly decided by both the courts below. There is no merit in this appeal and also no substantial question(s) of law as formulated at the time of admitting the appeal, is involved in the instant appeal, which is fit to be dismissed. 12. I have gone through the record of the case along with impugned judgment and decree. 13. It appears that the very basis of the case is that the appellant in respect of the suit schedule-A land is claiming permanent settlement by ex-landlord but the same has not been proved as a permanent settlement rather the Patta (Ext.3), on which plaintiff is claiming his right, title and interest, was created only for five years for making the land cultivable. Learned First Appellate Court has rightly recorded the findings that after lapse of five years, the settlee has got no permanent settlement after making the land cultivable. The land was still parti land and the ex- landlord has submitted no return in respect of any settlement.Hence, the same was vested in the State of Bihar. It further appears that the plaintiff never attempted to get correction in the Revenue Record and never challenged the settlement made in favour of defendant No.2 by defendant No.1(State of Bihar) before any Revenue Authority, who has got possession in the year 1970 over the suit land, rather the plaintiff has instituted the suit in the year 1990 assigning no valid reasons for his apprehension to be dispossessed at the hands of State of Bihar. In respect of substantial question of law, a very vague question has been posed to be decided which really does not involve any substantial question of law. In respect of substantial question of law, a very vague question has been posed to be decided which really does not involve any substantial question of law. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by learned Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court in dismissing the suit of plaintiff/appellant and take a different view. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed on contest. 14. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of accordingly. 15. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Records be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful.