Jharkhand High Court
Sukurmoni Nayek vs Raju Choudhary @ Raj Kumar Choudhary on 13 June, 2025
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
(2025:JHHC:16068
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
F. A. No. 153 of 2023
1. Sukurmoni Nayek, aged about 66 years, W/o Late Chamru Nayek
2. Saraswati Nayek, aged about 26 years, D/o Late Chamru Nayek
3. Indu Kumari, aged about 32 years, D/o Late Chamru Nayek
4. Arjun Nayek, aged about 35 years, S/o Late Chamru Nayek
5. Bhim Nayek, aged about 37 years, S/o Late Chamru Nayek
All residents of Bara Gamharia, P.O.: Gamharia, P.S.: Adityapur,
District: Seraikella-Kharsawan ... ... Defendants/Appellants
-Versus-
Raju Choudhary @ Raj Kumar Choudhary, Son of Bhola Nath
Choudhary, resident of Bara Gamharia, P.O.: Gamharia, P.S.:
Adityapur, District: Saraikela Kharsawan
... ... Plaintiff/Respondent
---
CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
—
For the Appellants : Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Tiwari, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, Advocate
: Mr. Abhishek Kumar Dubey, Advocate
: Mr. Yuvraj Singh, Advocate
: Mr. Atit Anwar, Advocate
—
CAV on 25.03.2025 Pronounced on 13.06.2025
This first appeal has been filed against the Judgment and Decree
dated 30.03.2022 (Decree sealed and signed on 04.04.2022) passed by
the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-I, Seraikella-Kharsawan in
Original Suit No.1 of 2017 (Title Eviction Suit No.1 of 2017) whereby
and whereunder the original suit was decreed on contest.
2. The appellants were the defendants in Original Suit No.1 of
2017 (Title Eviction Suit No.1 of 2017) filed on 07.02.2017 in which
the plaintiff/respondent had prayed for the following reliefs:
(a) For declaration of title of the Plaintiff over the suit
land over 23 Decimals including the suit room
(b) For a declaration that the Defendants have been
illegally living in the room in the suit land wherein
Chamru Nayek, the labourer of Plaintiff’s father was
under permissive possession1
(2025:JHHC:16068
(c) For a Decree for eviction of the Defendants from the
suit land and suit premises by the process of court
within a specified period from the date of Decree.
(d) For cost of the suit
(e) For any other relief or reliefs for which the Plaintiff is
found to be entitled.
3. The suit land is situated at Mouza: Bara Gamharia, Thana
No.66, Anchal Gamharia, Halka No.11, Khata No.753, Plot No.426,
area 20 Decimals, and Khata No.753, Plot No.427, area 3 decimals,
Total Area: 23 decimals bounded by North: Tata-Kandra Main Road,
South: Village Road, East: Bhola Hotel and West: Plot No.427
portion. The land consists one room brick-built house covered by Tina
roof under permissive possession of defendant’s husband and others.
The rest entire area is lying vacant. The other three rooms are also
situated on the southern part of the plot.
Case of the Plaintiff
4. The case of the plaintiff is that he has been a permanent resident
of Bara Gamharia and his father has been a businessman having his
house and landed property. The father of the plaintiff namely, Sri
Bholanath Choudhary has become an old man and he has engaged the
plaintiff in his business and said Bholanath Choudhary has executed a
deed of lease in favour of the plaintiff vide Registered Deed of Lease
No.3482 dated 19.11.2014.
5. Bholoanath Choudhary is the lawful owner of the lands situated
in Mouza Bara Gamharia, Thana No.66, Anchal Gamharia, Halka
No.11 bearing Khata No.753, Plot No.426, area 20 Decimals and Plot
No.427, area 3 Decimals, Total Area: 23 decimals bounded by: North:
Tata-Kandra Main Road, South: Village Road, East: Bhola Hotel and
West: Plot No.427 portion. The entire area has been leased out to the
plaintiff.
6. It was further stated that the father of the plaintiff acquired the
land being in possession of the said area of the plots. The father of the
plaintiff being in possession of the land which was recorded in the
2
(2025:JHHC:16068
name of the State of Bihar Anabad land. Earlier, Latifan Bibi legal
heir and successor of Seikh Jahiruddin was coming in possession and
she transferred the possessory right in favour of Bholanath Choudhary
and then Bholanath Choudhary constructed a house and started to
enjoy the same and used to induct some time some tenants and some
time for personal purpose.
7. The plaintiff further stated that there was a Rent Fixation
proceeding. The learned court of the A.D.C., Singhbhum, Chaibasa,
after considering the report of the Karmachari with respect to the said
two plots and considering that Bhola Choudhary has perfected his title
by possession, had passed order to realize 20 times Salami and for
realization of rent since the time of vesting of Jamindari for said 23
decimals of land. On such direction, the learned S.D.O., Seraikella had
passed order to realize such Salami and rent to be realized from
Bholanath Choudhary.
8. There was a demarcation for the said lands duly identified by a
sketch map prepared by the Government Amin. Accordingly, in the
Register-II of Khatian with respect to Mouza Bara Gamharia, Thana
No.66, Khata No.753, Plot Nos.426 and 427, area 20 decimals and 3
decimals, a total area of 23 decimals was entered in the name of
Bholanath Choudhary. Bholanath Choudhary has been paying regular
rent for the above noted lands.
9. Bholanath Choudhary constructed a brick-built room over an
area on the south-eastern side of the plot and was using the same for
his own purpose. Besides the aforesaid room, plaintiff’s father
constructed other three rooms on the southern side of the plot. The
entire area of 23 decimals has been bounded with old boundary and
since no repair work could be done in some part, the boundary walls
are broken. Since 2010, litigations under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. was
going for illegal claim by the defendants fraudulently having not a
single chit of paper with respect to the entire suit land or the room
situated on the southern-eastern part where Chamru Nayek was
allowed to live under permissive possession. In the said three other
3
(2025:JHHC:16068
rooms, plaintiff’s father and now the plaintiff has been using the same
for his business purpose. The defendants are now not allowing the
plaintiff to enter into any portion of the entire suit land. So, plaintiff
has been dispossessed in last December, 2016.
10. The plaintiff further stated that Chamru Nayek was the helper
of Bholanath Choudhary, father of the plaintiff and the plaintiff’s
father for convenience had allowed Chamru Nayek to live and stay
there purely under permissive possession. Earlier Chamru Nayek used
to live alone and later on, with the permission of Bholanath
Choudhary, he used to keep his wife and other family members.
Chamru Nayek continued to live in the said premises, which was a
room duly constructed by Bholanath Choudhary.
11. Chamru Nayek died a few years back leaving behind his wife
and children. The father of the plaintiff and the plaintiff as well
requested the defendants to vacate the said premises, but at the
instance of some mischief mongers, the Defendant No.1 initiated a
proceeding under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. simply by falsely saying that
she has been living since last 60 years.
12. However, in spite of protest and several requests to vacate,
Defendant No.1 alongwith other defendants have been continuing in
illegal possession. The defendants being the legal heirs of Late
Chamru Nayek has been residing in the room-in-question even after
the death of Chamru Nayek, who was living under permissive
possession. At that time, the plaintiff’s father did not disturb the
widow and the children of Chamru Nayek, rather they had promised to
leave the premises shortly. Permissive possession is no possession in
the eye of law. The defendants have no title whatsoever in the said
land and the plaintiff is the lawful owner having title on payment of
rent as a Raiyat.
13. The plaintiff further stated that the lessee has been intending to
start his own business over the entire area of 23 decimals over which
the room exists on the south-east corner and rest part is lying vacant.
But since in two cases under Section 107 of Cr.P.C proceeding, the
4
(2025:JHHC:16068
defendants have claimed title and possession disputing the title of the
plaintiff and his father, it has become necessary on behalf of the
plaintiff to file a suit for eviction on a declaration of title of the
plaintiff over the entire area including the premises of a single room of
an area 15′ X 10′ with brick walls and Tina Shed roof.
14. The plaintiff finally requested the Defendant No.1 to vacate the
premises in the month of December, 2016, but the defendant refused
and stated that she does not care about the law and the plaintiff cannot
do anything against her.
15. The plaintiff stated that the cause of action for the suit arose on
different dates and times when the room was given to Chamru Nayek
under permissive possession, when Chamru Nayek died and on
various occasions whenever the plaintiff and his father asked to vacate
and when the Miscellaneous Case No.127/2016 was initiated for the
suit land and lastly on 23.12.2016 at Bara Gamharia within the
jurisdiction of the learned trial court. The plaintiff valued the suit at
Rs.50,00,000/- for the purpose of court fee and paid the required fee.
Case of the Defendants
16. The defendants had appeared and filed their written statement
on 10.08.2017 stating therein that the suit filed by the plaintiff was not
maintainable in the present form or for the reliefs claimed and there
was absolutely no cause of action for this suit. The plaintiff, having no
right, title and possession over the alleged suit land, has no right to sue
to claim any relief from the court.
17. The defendants further stated that there is also no disclosure of
cause of action in the plaint and the plaint was liable to be rejected as
per the provision of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. The defendants also
claimed that the suit was barred by limitation, Specific Relief Act,
estoppel, waiver and acquiescence.
18. The defendants further stated that the description of the suit
land is quite vague and unspecific and the plaintiff has not disclosed
as to which survey the alleged Khata No.753 and Plot Nos.426 and
427 are related to, nor any trace map of any survey of 1964 or the
5
(2025:JHHC:16068
current Municipal Survey of 1983 has been referred and filed in the
suit. They also stated that in Mouza Bara Gamharia, survey and
settlement operation were carried out in the aforesaid period and
Khatian alongwith village maps were framed and published by the
concerned authorities of the State Government.
19. The defendants further stated that the suit was barred for non-
joinder of necessary party. As per admission of the plaintiff in
paragraph-3 of the plaint, the suit land was recorded in the name of
State of Bihar and so the State Government was a necessary party.
They also claimed that the plaintiff valued suit palpably at high rates
which was whimsical and mischievous meant only to neutralize the
poor defendants from contesting the suit and coerce them. The plaint
was not verified and affidavited as per law and so the same is liable to
be rejected.
20. While giving para-wise reply to the plaint, the defendants
admitted the statement made in Paragraph-1 as correct, but denied the
statement made in Paragraph-2 categorically and stated that Bholanath
Choudhary never derived any title or interest in the alleged suit land,
nor his son, the plaintiff has any sort of right and interest. Besides the
plaintiff being one of the sons of aforesaid Bholanath Choudhary has
no right to prosecute claiming a title in himself. The defendants
claimed to call upon the plaintiff to prove the statement made in
Paragraph-2 by cogent and lawful evidence. The defendants denied
the statement made in Paragraph 3 as false and concocted and stated
that Bholanath Choudhary, father of the plaintiff never derived any
title or interest over the Anabad land of the State Government and the
claim of possession by Bholanath Choudhary is also quite vague and
false. They further stated that the alleged transfer of possession by
Latifan Bibi in favour of Bholanath Choudhary is false and baseless
and the plaintiff’s claim regarding title on the basis of possession is
false and not tenable under law. They stated that Bholanath
Choudhary never came into possession with respect to the alleged Plot
6
(2025:JHHC:16068
Nos.426 and 427 of Khata No.753 of Mouza Bada Gamharia and so
called Latifan Bibi had no relationship with Sheikh Jahiruddin.
21. The defendants further stated that when the last revisional
survey under the Municipal Act and C.N.T. Act was carried out in
Bara Gamharia Ward No.4 A.N.A.C., the record of rights was finally
framed and published on 15.02.1983 and the new survey Plot Nos.
443 (Makan), 444 (a) Mokan (b) Bari, 445 parti and 442 parti were
recorded in the name of Anabad Bihar Sarkar under R.S. Khata
No.1182 of Ward No.4 A.N.A.C.
22. The defendants also stated that Late Bindheshwari Nayek, the
predecessor of the defendants was in possession of the land in Plot
Nos.445 and 442 wherein he had constructed residential house,
whereas the land in Plot Nos.443 and 444 were in possession of one
Jiban Krishna Dey and Sheikh Jahiruddin who had transferred their
possessory right in favour of the predecessor of the defendants long
ago. After the death of Bindheswari Nayek and his son Chamru
Nayek, the defendants are in possession of the land to the knowledge
of all concerned. The land in the aforesaid plots within compact
boundary was just opposite the Gamharia Block Office across the
Kandra-Tata Road and the same was under possession of the
defendants since the time of their predecessors about 60 years ago.
They further stated that the possession of the defendants was to be
reckoned with the possession of the transferor Jiban Krishna Dey and
Sheikh Jahiruddin, who have left Bara Gamharia long ago.
23. The defendants denied the statements made in Paragraph Nos.4,
5 and 6 of the plaint as false and stated that plaintiff has a greedy eye
over the lands of R.S. Khata No.1182 and in the process, is out to grab
the same on some false and fabricated paper. The alleged paper or
documents never confirmed any right or title in favour of the plaintiff
or his father who had no occasion to possess the land of the defendants
in R.S. Plot Nos. 442, 443, 444 or 445 at any point of time. The
defendants have applied to the Anchal Adhikari, Gamharia for fixation
of rent in their favour.
7
(2025:JHHC:16068
24. The defendants also denied the statements made in Paragraph
Nos.7 and 8 of the plaint as false and concocted and stated that
Chamru Nayek was never under permissive possession of the
Bholanath Choudhary or the plaintiff, nor he was a helper of
Bholanath Choudhary. They further stated that the alleged area of the
suit land is 23 decimals, whereas the total area of the new Plot
Nos.442, 443, 444 and 445 of new Khata No.1182 of Ward No.11
A.N.A.C. was 0.1105 hectares, equivalent to more or less 27½
decimals, over which the defendants possess in their own right. The
defendants stated that contention and allegation made in Paragraph- 9,
10 and 11 of the plaint are concocted and false and further stated that
the plaintiff has been trying to coerce and oust the defendants from the
alleged suit land by his money and muscle power and also by
procuring some illegal papers and consequently, the proceeding under
Section 107 of Cr.P.C. vide Misc Case No.94 of 2010 was initiated
against the plaintiff and G.R. Case No.707 of 2015 under different
sections of I.P.C. was registered in the court of C.J.M., Seraikella
against the plaintiff. The present suit is a ploy and colourable claim of
the plaintiff to oust the defendants from their residential house, angan,
etc. and engage them in futile litigation.
25. The defendants denied the statements made in Paragraph
Nos.12 and 13 of the plaint as false and stated that the plaintiff has
neither title, nor a locus standi to file the suit. They also denied the
statement made in Paragraph 14 of the plaint as false stating that there
arose no cause of action for the plaintiff to file the suit, nor he was
entitled for the relief claimed. The defendants stated that the statement
made in Paragraph-15 of the plaint is quite vague and imaginary and
the plaintiff with some evil design has valued the suit at exorbitant
high rate which reflects the plaintiff’s money power. The defendants
contended that the plaintiff’s suit is quite vexatious, frivolous and also
misleading without having any merit and is liable to be dismissed.
8
(2025:JHHC:16068
26. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial
court had framed altogether six issues for consideration, which are as
follows:
(1) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form or for
the relief claimed for?
(2) Whether there is any cause of action?
(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of right,
title and interest over the suit land in his favour and the
defendants have been illegally occupying the room of suit
land wherein Chamru Nayek, the labourer of plaintiff’s
father was under permissive possession?
(4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree for eviction
against the defendants from the suit land by the process of
the court?
(5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the cost of the suit?
(6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for any relief or reliefs to
which he is found to be entitled for?
27. The learned trial court considered the materials available on
record and recorded its findings in Paragraph- 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 of
the Judgment which are quoted as under:
“Issue Nos. 3 and 4
The main fact for adjudication before the court in this suit is
related to the entitlement of the plaintiff for which the suit has
been brought for declaration of its right, title and interest over the
suit land described in schedule of the plaint pertaining to Plot
No.426 area 20 decimals Khata No.753 and Khata No.753 Plot
No.427 area 3 decimals, total area 23 decimals consisting of one
room prepared house covered by Tina room?
13. On carefully scrutinizing the evidence as discussed above, it is
apparent that admittedly, the defendants residing in the said room
that was pleaded by the plaintiff to be in permissive possession of
the defendant’s husband and others and the rest of the area lying
vacant and other three rooms on southern part of the plot and
Chamru Nayak the labourer of the plaintiff’s father as under
permissive possession of the plaintiff’s father and the defendants
occupation on the suit land is illegal and whether the plaintiff is
entitled for a decree against the defendants in this suit by the
process of the Court and substantiating its claim, the plaintiff has
adduced the evidence in this case as discussed above in which the
C.C. of the Khaitan NAC Ward No.11, rent that has been realized
by the State of Bihar Khata No.1182 in the name of Anabad Bihar9
(2025:JHHC:16068Sarkar and the disputed land an area of 55 decimals consisting of
raw house made up of tiles and mud, Plot No.442 in the remark
column has been shown in the illegal possession of Seikh
Jahiruddin son of Seikh Lal Mohammad since 1952. The learned
counsel appearing for the defendants had reflecting the status of
the land recorded in Anabad Bihar Sarkar which is the land of
suit has not made party in this suit alongwith that plaintiff had got
no right, title and interest on the said land and order of the S.D.M.
Seraikella (Ext.9), C.C. of the order A.D.C. dated 21.02.1999
mentioning that the land-in-question belongs to Bihar Sarkar
Anabad cultivated land showing in possession of Latifan Bibi and
on the basis of the consent paper transferred to Bholanath
Choudhary upon which Bholanath Choudhary had constructed a
house and residing peacefully. Latifan Bibi having possession
over the land for more than 30 years and transferred to Bholanath
Choudhary has constructed a house on that land and living to its
having raiyat right on that. This has been argued by the learned
counsel appearing for the defendants that no such authority has
been given to the learned A.D.C./S.D.M. for such a declaration of
the status on the land of a person. Here it is important to mention
that only status of the applicant Bholanath Choudhary for the
fixation of rent and only rent has been fixed from the date of
abolition of the Jamindari on the land of total area 23 decimals.
The order was given to Circle Officer Gamharia for fixation of the
rent and jamabandi which is well within jurisdiction of the
authority concerned and only finding of the status for fixation of
the rent is being looked into in the present order respectfully
agreed with the contention of the learned counsel for the
defendants that no such declaration with respect to the right, title
and interest over any of the property is to be declared, but at the
same time it is within the jurisdiction of S.D.O./Circle Officer/
A.D.C. for fixation of rent and opening jamabandi for realization
of the rent on the basis of possession of any person and status of
the person filing the application for fixation of the rent and the
order dated 21.02.1989 of A.D.C reveals the status of the person
on the date of realization of jamabandi. No doubt, the land
originally belongs to the State recorded in the name of Anabad
Bihar Sarkar and the possession upon the land which is
corroborated by the remark column within illegal possession of
Jahiruddin since 1952 and Latifan Bibi succeeded the land
acquire the status of the Jahiruddin upon the land that has been
transferred the land to Bholanath Choudhary and on the basis of
that order of A.D.C. Singhbhum Chaibasa dated 21.02.1989 with
respect to the land of Khata No.753 Plot No.426 area 20
decimals, Plot No.427 area 3 decimals and Lagan of Rs.184/- was
recommended 20 guna Salami from the date of possession10
(2025:JHHC:16068abolition of Jamindari vide order dated 19.02.94 in the light of
letter no. 152 Revenue dated 18.02.1994 SDO Misc. case no.1/83-
84 regarding the aforesaid land the application for fixation was
accepted and rent roll parwana was issued and the recovery of
revenue of Rs.184/- from the date of abolition of Jamindari since
1956 total Rs.3680/- was assessed to be recoverable and the name
of the applicant Bholanath Choudhary entered in the rent roll.
The plaintiff has also adduced the C.C. of the Amin report vide
Demarcation Case No.41/96-97 in which the inquiry and
measurement demarcation of the land was made on the
application of Bholanath Choudhary. The rent assessed has been
paid by Bholanath Choudhary, the father of the plaintiff vide
receipt no. 489274 on dated 19.02.94. The C.C. of Demarcation
Case No.41/96-97 (Ext.4) on the basis of which the land in dispute
has been demarcated and the report has been prepared by Circle
Officer, Gamharia. The C.C. of the entire order sheet of Misc.
Case No.1/83-84 initiated on the application of Bholanath
Choudhary for creation of the Jamabandi with respect to the land
in dispute and after inquiry and demarcation of the land, the
jamabandi has been opened. The report of Halka Karmchari and
the report of Circle Officer, it was found that Bholanath
Choudhary was in possession of the land in dispute in which it has
also been recommended jamabandi of the land fixation on the
payment of salami and the case has been initiated for the
bandobasti of the land pertaining to Thana No.66, Khata No.753
Plot No.426 area 20 decimals and Plot No. 427 area 3 decimals,
total area 23 decimals of land and during inquiry by Halka
Karmchari Makan Sahan was constructed to be found that was
also found to be in possession of Seikh Jahiruddin as recorded in
the khatian since 1952 out of which 13 decimals of land from Plot
No.426 has been used for construction of the road by Lok Nirman
Bibhag, remaining 20 decimals of land is Badi has been obtained
by Bholanath Choudhary from the occupier deceased Jahiruddin
legally his daughter Most. Latifan Bibi on dated 11.03.1983 and
since then he is in possession of the land and the application has
been made for fixation of the rent. There is finding in the order by
S.D.O. that in the year 1977-78, when the proposal of the
bandobasti was made by Jiwan Krishandeo and objection to that
has been made by Latifan Bibi and the recommendation of the
bandobasti of the land in favour of Latifan Bibi was also made by
Circle Officer on dated 15.08.1982 and on spot inspection, it was
found in possession of Bholanath Choudhry in between Jiwan
Krishandeo and Latifan Bibi, both had transferred the land to the
applicant Bholanath Choudhary on that finding the
recommendation of fixation of rent was made and as per C.C. of
not final khatiyan of new Plot No.444, 448(Ext.6) related to Ward
11
(2025:JHHC:16068
No. 11 Adityapur N.A.C. Touzi No.753 Khata No.1182 recorded
Anabad Bihar Sarkar. The rent of Plot No. 442/427, 445/426 that
has also been shown in the name of Seikh Jahiruddin in remark
column since 1952 and final Form-M (Ext.7) on the Rent
Assessment Case No. 1/1983-84 Jamabandi has been opened in
the name of Bholanath Choudhary pertaining to the land in
dispute which corroborated by Form-M marked (Ext.7).
14. The defendant in this case has not adduced any documentary
evidence, rather the Government Rent Receipt No.419600 (Ext. 2),
Government Rent Receipt No.724516 (Ext. 2/a), Government Rent
Receipt No.1062654 (Ext. 2/b), Government Rent Receipt
No.712140 (Ext. 2/c), Government Rent Receipt No.021605
(Ext.2/d) issued in the name of Bholanath Choudhary
substantiated Bholanath Choudhary upon the suit land the total
area 23 decimals pertaining to Khata No.753A. However, the
defects the transfer of the land by Latifan Bibi to Bholanath
Choudhary the evidence on the record as discussed above
corroborated the possession of Bholanath Choudhary upon the
disputed land and also showing the possession of Seikh
Jahiruddin since 1952 and after his death, the possession was
given by Latifan Bibi to Bholanath Choudhary and the evidence
adduced by the plaintiff the same that Bholanath Choudhary was
in possession of the suit land as discussed above and Bholanath
Choudhary remain in possession of the land in dispute that is
undoubtedly been recorded as Anabad Bihar Sarkar, the true
owner of the land is State of Jharkhand. By which no dispute has
been raised regarding the peaceful possession of the father of the
plaintiff, rather from the date of abolition of Jamindari Pratha
prior to that was in possession of Latifan Bibi and her father on
the basis of the Agreement on dated 11.03.1983 Latifan Bibi
handed over the possession of the land to Bholanath Choudhary
and since then Bholanath Choudhary was in possession of the
land in dispute. This is also not been disputed by the true owner
and in the eye of law possessory right of Seikh Jahiruddin has not
been disputed remaining in possession of the land since the year
1952 prior to the abolition of the Jamindari Pratha and after his
death his daughter Latifan Bibi remain in possession of that land
and in the year 1983, the said possession was given to Bholanath
Choudhary. Again, from that point of time, the possession of
Bholanath Choudhary was also not been disturbed by the
recorded owner and possessory right was formed by State
authority and the jamabandi has been opened. It is also the settled
law that long run Jamabandi itself cannot be cancelled upon
creating authority and it has never been challenged by the true
owner, the defendant has no right to challenge the entire process
of creation of Jamabandi. At the same time, rent roll Form-M also
12
(2025:JHHC:16068
substantiated that Bholanath Choudhary had paid entire rent from
the date of abolition of Jamindari system since 1956. In the light
of the provision of Section 5 of Bihar Land Reforms Jamindzari
Abolition Act, 1950, Section 6 of the CNT Act as per which the
Meaning of “raiyat” A person shall not be deemed to be a raiyat
unless he holds land either immediately under a proprietor or
immediately under a tenure-holder or immediately under a
Mundari Khunt-kattidar. (b) the purpose for which the right of
tenancy was originally acquired. “Raiyats” is defined in sub-
clause 2 of Section 5 as meaning “primarily a person who has
acquired a right to hold land for the purpose of cultivating it by
himself or by members of his family …… ” Sub- clause 3 provides
that a person shall not be deemed to be a raiyat unless he holds
land either immediately under a proprietor or immediately under
a tenure-holder. Lakhandeo Singh was not a “proprietor” by
which term is meant a person owning, whether in trust or for his
own benefit, an estate or part of an estate: he was only a
mortgagee. Nor was he a tenure-holder or under-tenure holder, as
he does not comply with the definition given in sub-clause (1) of
Section 5, namely, a person who had acquired from a proprietor
or from another tenure-holder a right to hold land for the purpose
of collecting rents, or for the purpose of bringing the land under
cultivation by establishing tenants on it, here in the present fact
and circumstances of the case and the position of the original
owner being in the occupation over the suit land had acquired the
status of the occupancy raiyat and the said land inherited by the
daughter of the original raiyat and transfer the land by giving to
the father of the plaintiff though the same is not been transferred
by any legal document, however on the basis of the possession
over the disputed land, the same has been mutated in the name of
the father of the plaintiff as such relying upon the authority of the
honorable High court of the Jharkhand in the case of Smt. Bina
Rani Ghosh v. Commissioner South Chotanagpur, it has been
held that as long as Raiyati rights remain intact, the landlord
merely has a right to claim rent from the raiyat and nothing more.
With regard to rights of occupancy raiyat, Section 16 of the Act
says, every raiyat who immediately before the commencement of
this Act, has, by the operation of any enactment, or by local
custom or usage or otherwise, a right of occupancy in any land,
shall when this Act comes into force, have a right of occupancy in
that land, and as reported in: State of Jharkhand and Ors. Vs.
Arjun Das 2004 (3) BLJR 1998, 2004 (4) JCR 535 (Jhr) by the
Hon’ble High Court that in the light of the settled proposition of
law laid down by various Courts was held that in a mutation
proceedings, the Circle Officer is not supposed to determine the
title and the proprietary right in immovable property for the
13
(2025:JHHC:16068
reason that orders in mutation proceedings are not evidence that
the successful applicant is in possession as sole legal owner in a
proprietary sense to the exclusion of others. But at the same time,
the Circle Officer is not precluded from considering the evidence
on the basis of which applicant is claiming possession and the
doctrine that possession follows title is well recognized. That
means that when rightful owner is not in actual physical
possession, he would in the eye of law be deemed to be in
possession. The benefit of such presumption can accrue in favour
of the rightful owner, but not in favour of wrong doer. In the case
the defendant had not adduced any evidence as to its possession
over the suit Land by any valid title per contrary to that the status
of father of the plaintiff being in possession of the land in dispute
for the purpose of dwelling house had got the possessory right,
title and interest upon the suit land and the documents that has
been produced by the plaintiff for substantiating the fact that it
was the land in dispute described in schedule of the registered
Lease Deed No.3482 on dated 19.11.2014 by Bholanath
Choudhary in favour of Raju Choudhary of his own son will not
make any trouble to the status of Bholanath Choudhary on the suit
land and after his death, all his legal heirs including Raju
Choudhary the son of Bholanath Choudhary had inherited the
similar right upon the land in dispute and therefore, the plaintiff is
entitled for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit
land and on the basis of conclusion arrived thereon that the
defendants possession upon the suit land is not legal and he was
in permissive possession over the suit land of the plaintiff. Hence
the plaintiff is entitled to get the vacate possession of the suit land
as described in schedule of the plaint by evicting the defendants
from the suit premises and the suit land by the process of the
court. Accordingly, Issue Nos.3 and 4 are decided affirmative and
in favour of the plaintiff.
Issue Nos. 1 & 2
The main fact for adjudication before the court in the suit with
respect to the present issues are that whether the suit as brought
by the plaintiff is maintainable in present form and entitled for
the relief claimed and the plaintiff has got valid cause of action
for this suit or not?
15. In this respect, on going through the pleadings of the parties
and the evidences adduced by the plaintiff and argument
advanced by the plaintiff and defendants, the court arrived at the
conclusion that the suit is not bad for non-joinder of the State as
necessary party because the main dispute has been arisen between
the plaintiff and the defendants as the defendants are the legal
heirs of Late Chamru Nayak who was inducted upon the part of
14
(2025:JHHC:16068
suit premises by the father of the plaintiff for the purpose of the
residing and it was a permissive possession since the possession
of Bholanath Choudhary has been established on the basis of the
evidence on the record. The defendants are found to be in
permissive possession of the father of the plaintiff and after the
death of Chamru Nayak, the legal heirs of Chamru Nayak who are
defendants were also in permissive possession and when the
defendants denied to vacate the suit premises on dated 23.12.2016
and prior to that initiation of the Misc. Case 127/2016, no relief
has been sought against the State and neither any dispute has
been created by the State regarding the possession of Bholanath
Choudhary upon the land in dispute. The cause of action for the
suit arisen in this case against the defendants alongwith that the
plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed for which is also been
established upon the adjudication of the main issue No. 3 and 4 in
this suit and after finding valid cause of action for the suit on
dated 23.12.2016, the suit has been brought by the plaintiff on
dated 07.02.2017 within the valid period of limitation as per
Article 65 of the Indian Limitation Act. Hence, the court arrived at
the conclusion that the plaintiff had valid cause of action for the
suit and the suit is maintainable in its present form and the
plaintiff is entitled for the decree for declaration of title of the
plaintiff over the suit land over 23 decimals including the suit
room, and for declaration that the defendants have been illegally
living in the room in the suit land wherein Chamru Nayak the
labourer of plaintiff’s father was under permissive possession
along with that the for a decree for eviction of the defendants from
the suit land and suit premises by the process of court within a
specific period from the date of decree. In the result, the present
Issue Nos. 1 & 2 are decided in affirmative and in favour of the
plaintiff and against the defendant’s.
Issue Nos. 5 and 6
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the cost of the suit and
whether the plaintiff is entitled for any relief or reliefs to which
he is found to be entitled for?
16. In this respect, on scrutinizing the entire materials available
on the record and on the basis of the finding that the plaintiff is
entitled for declaration of his right, title and interest upon the suit
land and the defendants are remained in in permissive possession
over the suit land as Chamru Nayak was inducted upon the suit
premises on the permission of the father of the plaintiff and denied
to vacate the suit land in dispute when demanding to vacate the
suit land by the plaintiff and illegally occupying the room of the
suit premises, the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of its right, title
and interest over the suit land to vacate the possession by evicting
15
(2025:JHHC:16068
the defendants and in the light of the present facts and
circumstances of the case, the plaintiff is not entitled for any cost
of the suit and also that he is not entitled for any other relief or
reliefs. Accordingly, issue Nos. 5 and 6 are decided in negative.
17. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and
in the light of conclusion arisen thereon and upon the
adjudication as well as conclusion with respect to the main issues
nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 that the suit is maintainable in present form or
for the relief claimed, plaintiff has got valid cause of action for
this suit, the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of right, title and
interest over the suit land in his favour and the defendants have
been illegally occupying the room of suit land wherein Chamru
Nayak the labourer of plaintiff’s father was under permissive
possession and the plaintiff is entitled for a decree for eviction
against the defendants from the suit land by the process of the
court ….”.
28. Thus, the learned trial court decided the Issue Nos.(1), (2), (3)
and (4) in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants and
decided Issue No.(5) with regard to cost and Issue No.(6) with regard
to any other relief or reliefs against the plaintiff and decreed the suit
on contest without cost and by the Judgment, it was declared that the
plaintiff had got valid right, title and interest upon the suit land as
described in Schedule of the plaint and the plaintiff is entitled to get
vacant possession of the suit premises, being occupation of the
defendants who were inducted by the father of the plaintiff, by
evicting from the suit land through the process of the court. The
defendants of the suit were directed to vacate the suit premises/suit
land and give the vacant possession to the plaintiff within 60 days
from the date of the order, failing which the plaintiff was given liberty
to execute the decree as per due process of law by the court.
Arguments on behalf of the appellants
29. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the
plaintiff had claimed possessory rights over the property which is
recorded in the name of Anabad Bihar Sarkar. He further submitted
that it was the case of the plaintiff that his father had put the
defendants under permissive possession and on the other hand, it was
the case of the defendants that the defendants were living over the
16
(2025:JHHC:16068
property of their own right. The learned counsel submitted that no
evidence has been brought on record to show that the plaintiff’s father
had put the defendants in permissive possession and under such
circumstances, the suit could not have been decreed. The learned
counsel further submitted that the Khatian which was exhibited was
not final and the plaintiff was claiming his possession through Seikh
Jahiruddin and it was his case that Latifan Bibi, the only daughter of
Seikh Jahiruddin, who came in possession of the property gave the
possession to the father of the plaintiff namely, Bholanath Choudhary.
He submitted that the learned trial court has declared right, title and
interest of the plaintiff and the defendants have been directed to hand
over the vacant possession of the suit property.
30. The learned counsel further submitted that once the property
was recorded in the name of Anabad Bihar Sarkar, then under such
circumstances, the title of the plaintiff could not have been declared
and the then State of Bihar now State of Jharkhand was a necessary
party in the case, but the plaintiff never made any endeavour to make
the State of Jharkhand as party in the proceedings.
31. The learned counsel submitted that from the side of the
defendants, no documentary evidence was produced, but possession of
the defendants is an admitted fact from the side of the plaintiff as well.
He further submitted that the defendants’ witnesses have fully
supported the case of the defendants and they deposed that they were
in possession of the property for the last 60 years and the deposition
was recorded in the year 2019 and 60 years would get back to year
1959. The learned counsel submitted that the possession of the
defendants is independent of the claim of the possession of the
plaintiff and therefore, the plaintiff has failed to prove that they had
put the defendants in possession of the property.
32. The learned counsel also submitted that no documentary
evidence has been produced by the plaintiff that Latifan Bibi had
settled the property in favour of the plaintiff.
17
(2025:JHHC:16068
Submissions made in Written arguments submitted by the
appellants
33. It is admitted position between both the parties that the land is
recorded in the record as Anabad Bihar Sarkar and it is also admitted
that Sheikh Jahiruddin was shown in illegal possession of the said land
in the remarks column in records.
34. Though it is mentioned in the orders of revenue authorities that
the father of the plaintiff had purchased the possessory right from
successor of Jahuruddin namely, Latifan Bibi in the year 1983, but no
documentary proof of the same was produced by the plaintiff before
the learned trial court and it has also not been properly proved that
Latifan Bini is successor of Sheikh Jahiruddin.
35. It is further submitted that though it was claimed by the plaintiff
that the rent of the said land was fixed in his favour vide Rent Fixation
Case No. 01 of 1983-84 (Exhibit-5), but the oral evidence of the
plaintiff goes to prove that these defendants are residing in the said
property prior to the rent fixation done in favour of the plaintiff.
36. The plaintiff’s witnesses have also stated in their cross-
examination that the dispute was going on in between the parties since
1981 and therefore, the claim of the plaintiff that the defendants are in
permissive possession of the suit land is not supported by the
witnesses adduced by the plaintiff. After considering the evidences of
the witnesses of the plaintiff, it is apparent that the dispute is going on
in between the parties since 1981 and therefore, the suit filed by the
plaintiff in the year 2017 is barred by law of limitation. But in the
present case, the learned trial court has neither framed any issue with
regard to the limitation, nor decided the same. A reference has been
made to section 3(1) of the Limitation Act, 1963.
37. In the present case, the plaintiff’s witnesses have categorically
stated that there was dispute between the plaintiff and defendants
since the year 1981 and therefore, the learned trial court was required
to consider the limitation in the present case, but as the learned trial
18
(2025:JHHC:16068
court has not considered the same, the Judgment and Decree of the
learned trial court is fit to be set aside.
38. The learned trial court has also failed to consider that there is no
document whereby it can be proved that either Jahiruddin or his
successor has ever transferred the said property, much less the
possessory right of the same, in favour of the father of the plaintiff and
merely on the basis of rent assessment done by the revenue authorities
purportedly under the Bihar Land Reforms Act does not confer any
title or possession in favour of plaintiff as in catena of decisions
passed by this Hon’ble Court as well as by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, it is categorically stated that mutation/entry in the revenue
records neither creates, nor extinguishes the title.
39. The judgment of the learned trial court is also vitiated on the
ground that the learned trial court has accepted that the disputed land
is undoubtedly recorded as Anabad Bihar Sarkar and therefore, the
true owner of the land is State of Jharkhand, but without considering
the fact that the State was necessary party, the learned trial court
decreed the suit, which is unjust and unsustainable in the eyes of law
and as such, the judgment and decree of the learned trial court is fit to
be aside.
Arguments on behalf of the respondent
40. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff-
respondent on the other hand opposed the prayer and submitted that
the witnesses of the plaintiff including the plaintiff himself has clearly
deposed that Chamru Nayek was working as helper under Bholanath
Choudhary and Bholanath Choudhary had permitted Chamru Nayek
to live in the disputed rooms and initially he used to live alone and
thereafter he was permitted to live with his wife and children and after
death of Chamru Nayek the ancestor of the defendants, at the request
of the defendants, Bholanath Choudhary allowed the defendants to
continue to live in the property and therefore, the possession of
Chamru Nayek and thereafter his descendants was a permissive
possession. He submitted that there is no much cross examination in
19
(2025:JHHC:16068
connection with this evidence led from the side of the plaintiff. The
learned counsel further referred to Exhibit-6 which is Khatiyan not
final and submitted that in Exhibit-6, possession of Seikh Jahiruddin
has been shown to be since 1952. The learned counsel thereafter
referred to Form ‘M’ which is relating to rent-roll showing fair and
equitable rent or ground-rent determined under Sections 5, 6 or 7 of
Bihar Land Reforms Act and submitted that in a proceeding bearing
Misc. Case No. 1 of 1983-84, the property involved in the case is
recorded in the name of Bholanath Choudhary. This assessment of
rent was under the provisions of Bihar Land Reforms Act and no
appeal was filed against such fixation of rent, although same is an
appealable order under Section 8 of Bihar Land Reforms Act. The
learned counsel also submitted that while fixation of rent-roll, the
claim that the property as transferred by Latifan Bibi was also taken
into consideration, which is apparent from the exhibits filed before the
learned court. The learned counsel submitted that there was an order
passed by the S.D.O., Seraikella wherein the rent for the property was
directed to be paid with 20 times Salami right from the date of
abolition of Zamindari. The learned counsel also submitted that
pursuant thereto, the payment was made and ultimately rent receipts
were also issued. The learned counsel submitted that the defendants
have not claimed title over the property and in the written statement,
the defendants had only stated that they had made application in the
Circle Office for settlement of the property in their favour.
41. The learned counsel for respondent submitted that on the point
of right, title, interest and entitlement of the plaintiff for a decree for
eviction of the defendants, the trial court had framed Issue Nos. 3 and
4, which would also be the points of determination in this first appeal.
Submissions made through the Written arguments submitted by
the respondent
42. The plaintiff has proved his title by producing all documents
relating to right, title and interest and has also proved the possession.
Plaintiff has brought the certified copy Khatian on record. Section 84
20
(2025:JHHC:16068
of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act provides for presumption regarding
correctness of entries made in the record of rights and Exhibit-3 duly
proves that Sheikh Jahiruddin was in possession over the land in
question and plaintiff’s father had purchased the same from his
daughter on 11.03.1983 and since then, he is in possession.
43. The plaintiff has filed the certified copy of order sheet of Misc.
Case No. 01/83-84 wherein the father of the plaintiff had applied for
rent fixation under Section 5, 6 & 7 of Bihar Land Reforms Act which
was allowed and the plaintiff’s father was directed to pay 20 times
salami right from the year 1956, which was paid by him and
accordingly, Form ‘M’ (rent roll) (Exhibit-7) was issued in his favour
and rent receipts are being issued.
44. The plaintiff has also proved that before rent fixation, revenue
authorities made local inspection and during that period also, the
plaintiff’s father was found to be in possession and neither any
objection was made by the defendants, nor the order of rent fixation
has ever been challenged by the defendants and the said order has
attained finality.
45. The plaintiff has also examined Sekh Taiyab Ali, Nephew of
Late Jahiruddin as P.W.-3 to prove the right, title and possession of
Bholanath Choudhary over the suit land.
46. The plaintiff has also proved that appellants/defendants were in
permissive possession over the land in question.
47. The appellants had stated in their written statement and
evidence that they are staying in the suit land since last 60 years.
However, they have given suggestions to the plaintiffs’ witnesses that
they are residing since last 30-40 years which demolishes their own
claim.
48. D.W.-2, at Para-18 of his deposition, has admitted that he has
no claim over Plot Nos. 426 and 427 of Khata No.753 (suit plot) and
at Para-19, he further admitted that the plaintiff has instituted the suit
by mentioning 23 decimals of land from the aforesaid two plots.
Hence, D.W.-2 has admitted that he has no claim over the suit land.
21
(2025:JHHC:16068
49. It is the consistent case of the plaintiff that Late Chamru Nayek
was working as a labourer under Bholanath Choudhary who had given
a room to Chamru Nayek who was residing there under permissive
possession. The defendants/appellants have not given even a
suggestion to the plaintiff’s witnesses that Chamru Nayak was not
working as a labourer under Bholanath Choudhary.
50. The appellants were harping upon the evidence of P.W.-2 to
show that he has admitted in his cross examination that defendants
were residing since 1981. However, same is also misconceived, as
P.W.-2 at Para-15 has stated that he is looking after the house since
1981 and in the next sentence, he stated that he has seen Bhola
Choudhary and Radha Choudhary asking defendants to vacate the
land. In Para-17, he denied the suggestion that defendants were
residing since last 30-40 years. So, no such inference that the
defendants were residing since 1981 could be drawn from the
evidence of P.W.-2.
51. The plaintiff/appellant has not only proved his right, title,
interest and continuous possession since 1983, but has also proved that
defendants were in permissive possession over one room in the suit
property which they refused to vacate later on and as such, the present
suit was brought. On the other hand, defendants have taken self-
contradictory stand and have falsified their own claim regarding
length of their residence and have not filed a single chit of paper to
show their title and to show as to how they were inducted in the suit
property.
52. The learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the
following judgements: –
(a) Bishwanath Ram vs. Most. Lawangwas Kaur 2007(3)
JCR 308
(b) Dwarika Sonar & Ors. Vs. Most. Bilguli & Ors 2003 (2)
JCR 134 Jhr
(c) The State of Haryana Vs. Amin Lal 2024 INSC 875-
Para-6, 8 & 9
22
(2025:JHHC:16068
53. Points for determination. After hearing the learned counsel
appearing for the parties, the following points of determination arise in
the present case:
(i) Whether the defendants-appellants/ their predecessor in
interest have been occupying the room situated on the
south-eastern portion of the suit land under permissive
possession of the plaintiff’s father and after his death, the
defendants-appellants are residing under permissive
possession of the plaintiff?
(ii) Whether the learned trial court has committed any
illegality while holding that the plaintiff has got valid right,
title and interest over the suit land and he is entitled to get
vacant possession of the suit premises by evicting the
defendants from the suit land through the process of court?
(iii) Whether the plaintiff-respondent is entitled for a decree
for eviction against the defendants-appellants from the
aforesaid room situated on the south-eastern portion of the
suit land by the process of the court?
(iv) Whether the appellants are fit to be directed to vacate the
room situated on the south-eastern portion of the suit land
which is in their occupation and possession and to give its
vacant possession to the respondent within a specified
period, failing which the respondent may execute the
decree as per due process of law?
Findings of this Court
54. In course of trial, the plaintiff examined four witnesses to prove
his case. PW-1 is Bimal Devnath, PW-2 is Manoj Kumar Mishra, PW-
3 is Sekh Taiyab Ali and PW-4 is Raju Choudhary @ Rajkumar
Choudhary, the plaintiff himself.
55. PW-1 filed his examination-in-chief on affidavit stating that he
knows both the parties. He further stated that as Bholanath Choudhary
had become old, he has given the responsibility to look after his
23
(2025:JHHC:16068
business to his son, who is the plaintiff, and has also given the
disputed land situated at Mouza- Bara Gamharia to him on lease for
starting his own business. He further stated that after government
settlement, Bholanath Choudhary constructed one tina shed room on
the land and started using the same. On the southern portion of the
land, he constructed three rooms and he is using the same for his
business. He further stated that Chamru Nayek, who was the husband
of Defendant No.1 and father of other defendants, used to work as
helper of Bholanath Choudhary and therefore, Bholanath Choudhary
permitted Chamru Nayek to reside in the disputed room. Initially
Chamru Nayek used to reside alone in the room, but later on, after
giving permission by Bholanath Choudhary, Chamru Nayek started
residing with his wife and children in the disputed room. After some
years, Chamru Nayek died, but on the request of the defendants,
Bholanath Choudhary permitted them to reside in the disputed room.
He further stated that when the plaintiff requested the defendants to
vacate the room for starting his own business, the defendants deferred
to vacate the house and, in the meantime, a case under Section 107 of
Cr.P.C. was initiated and lastly, in the month of December, 2016,
when the plaintiff asked the defendants to vacate the room, they flatly
refused to vacate. He further stated that all the documents related to
the disputed house are in the name of Bholanath Choudhary and he is
also paying rent to the State for the whole plot. The defendants were
residing in the disputed room on the permission of Bholanath
Choudhary and now the plaintiff needs the said place for his own
business, but the defendants do not want to vacate the disputed house.
Therefore, having no option, the plaintiff has filed the suit for vacating
his room and his claim is true. During cross-examination, PW-1
admitted that he is engaged in transporting of goods for the last some
years under Bholanath Choudhary, who is alive and Bholanath
Choudhary has three sons namely, Ganesh Choudhary, Kalu
Choudhary and Raju Choudhary. He further admitted that the disputed
land is recorded in the name of State Government in the recent survey
24
(2025:JHHC:16068
and he has not seen any document to confirm the fact that Bholanath
Choudhary has purchased the disputed land. He further admitted that
the defendants are possessing the disputed land for the last 25-28 years
and on the basis of title, the plaintiff wants to vacate the disputed land
from the defendants.
56. PW-2 filed his examination-in-chief on affidavit stating that he
knows both the parties. He stated the facts of the case supporting the
case of the plaintiff in verbatim as stated by PW-1. During cross-
examination, PW-2 admitted that the plaintiff is his friend and the land
belongs to Bholanath Choudhary who is alive. He further admitted
that he has not seen the documents of the land, nor he has seen the
survey Khatian. He also admitted that he had seen Chamru Nayek and
some labourers of Bholanath Choudhary residing over the land with
the permission of Bholanath Choudhary. He further admitted that he
has seen the hut on the disputed land since 1981 and he has also seen
Bholanath Choudhary and Radha Choudhary asking the defendants to
vacate the disputed land.
57. PW-3 filed his examination-in-chief on affidavit stating that he
knows both the parties. He further stated that the disputed land is
situated in Mouza- Bara Gamharia, Thana- Adityapur, Khata No.753
bearing Plot No.426, Area- 20 decimals and Plot No.427, area 3
decimals, total area 23 decimals. He also stated that the disputed land
was recorded in the Khatian in illegal possession of his uncle namely,
Sheikh Jahiruddin and he was having possession over the land, but
after death of his uncle, his only daughter and successor namely,
Latifan Bibi sold the disputed land to Bholanath Choudhary and since
then, Bholanath Choudhary is possessing and enjoying the land after
constructing a house and letting some rooms of the house on rent. He
further stated that the application filed by Bholanath Choudhary for
rent fixation of the land in the Circle Office has been accepted and
since then, he is paying rent of the land. He also stated that the father
of the plaintiff had permitted the husband of Defendant No.1 to reside
in the disputed house, as he was working as helper in the transport
25
(2025:JHHC:16068
business of the father of the plaintiff and Chamru Nayek was residing
and possessing the disputed land as a lessee on the permission of the
father of the plaintiff and Chamru Nayek had no right and title over
the disputed land. After death of Chamru Nayek, the defendants are
possessing the disputed land as lessees on the permission of the
plaintiff and his father. He further stated that Bholanath Choudhary
has become old and he has transferred the disputed land to his son, the
plaintiff by a registered lease deed in the year 2014. When the
defendants did not agree to vacate the disputed land, the plaintiff has
filed the suit in court and his claim is true. During his cross-
examination, PW-3 admitted that Jahiruddin was not his own uncle,
but he knows him. He further admitted that the old Khatian of Khata
No.753 was recorded in the name of Bihar Sarkar and Jahiruddin had
illegal possession over Plot Nos.426 and 427 of Khata No.753.
Jahiruddin has died 10-15 years ago and his daughter namely, Latifan
Bibi has sold the land to Bholanath Choudhary by an agreement in
which he was a witness. He further admitted that there is a house and
bari over the disputed land measuring 23 decimals.
58. PW-4 is the plaintiff himself and he filed his examination-in-
chief on affidavit stating that the disputed land is situated in Mouza-
Bara Gamharia, Thana- Adityapur, Khata No.753 bearing Plot
No.426, Area- 20 decimals and Plot No.427, area 3 decimals. He also
stated that during the 1964 survey settlement, the disputed land was
recorded in the name of Anabad Bihar Sarkar. Since the disputed land
was in physical possession of Sheikh Jahiruddin from much before
1964, therefore his name was entered as illegal possession since 1952,
but the Government never took any step for correction of the same.
After death of Jahiruddin, his only successor namely, Latifan Bibi
continued to possess the disputed land and she handed over possession
of the said land to his father namely, Bholanath Choudhary on
24.12.1982. Thereafter, his father constructed house over the disputed
land and continued his possession and gave some rooms of the house
to different persons on rent. After getting possession of the land, his
26
(2025:JHHC:16068
father filed an application in the Circle Office, Gamharia for fixation
of rent and after enquiry, the Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum
passed an order for fixation of rent on the basis of long continuous
adverse possession over the disputed land more than the statutory
period and accordingly, after payment of the fixed rent to the
Government since the abolition of Jamindari, his father continued his
possession of the land. He further stated that his father had constructed
one room on the south-eastern portion and had constructed one house
having three rooms on the southern portion of the disputed land and
on the request of Chamru Nayek, he was permitted to reside on the
room on the south-eastern portion. Chamru Nayek was working under
his father and he alongwith his family was residing in the room with
permission of his father. He further stated that as his father has
become old and he is unable to look after the property, he handed over
the business to him and executed a deed of lease in his favour vide
Registered Deed of Lease No.3482 dated 19.11.2014 for the disputed
land and since then, he is in possession over the disputed land having
lease rights. He further stated that after death of Chamru Nayek, he
permitted the defendants to reside in the south-eastern room of the
disputed land and on the basis of the said permission, the defendants
are residing there. He further stated that when he felt need of the said
room situated on the disputed land for his own business, he requested
the defendants to vacate the room, but they refused to vacate the room
and initiated a case under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. on the basis of false
allegations. He further stated that Chamru Nayek and his wife and
children had got no right and title over the disputed land and Chamru
Nayek was residing over the disputed land with the permission of his
father and after his death, the defendants are residing in the said room
with his permission and the defendants have never got any right or
title over the disputed land. He further stated that lastly, in the month
of Devcember, 2016, he requested the defendants to vacate the room
situated over the disputed land and when they refused to vacate, he
filed the suit and his claim is true and the cause of action is valid.
27
(2025:JHHC:16068
During cross-examination, PW-4 admitted that the Plot Nos. 426 and
427, Khata No.753, Mouza- Bara Gamharia, area 23 decimals are
recorded in the name of State Government and in the new survey, the
land is recorded as Plot Nos. 444A, 444B, 443, 445 and 442 and the
new Khatian is in the name of Anabad Bihar Sarkar. He also admitted
that he has not made the State Government a party in the suit. He
further admitted that he had not sent any notice under Section 80 of
CPC to the local Deputy Commissioner or the State Government. He
further admitted that the defendants are residing in the 10′ x 10′ room
measuring 23 decimals and they are also claiming over the rest vacant
land. He also admitted that his father had purchased the disputed land
from Latifan Bibi, the daughter of Jahiruddin in the year 1982. He also
admitted that a proceeding under Section 107 of CrPC and one
criminal case are pending. He further admitted that Chamru Nayek
was a worker of his father and he was given the room for residing, but
his father has not filed any case for vacating the house.
59. On recall, PW-4, the plaintiff exhibited the Registered Deed of
Lease No.3482 dated 19.11.2014 as Exhibit-1, Government Rent
Receipt Nos. 419600 and 724516 as Exhibits- 2 and 2/a, Government
Rent Receipt No.1062654 as Exhibit-2/b, Government Rent Receipt
No.712140 as Exhibit-2/c and Government Rent Receipt No.021605 as
Exhibit-2/d. During his further cross-examination, PW-4 admitted that
60. The plaintiff exhibited the following documents:
Exhibit-1 Registered Lease Deed No.3482 dated 19.11.2014
Exhibit-2 Government Rent Receipt No.419600
Exhibit-2/a Government Rent Receipt No.724516
Exhibit-2/b Government Rent Receipt No.1062654
Exhibit-2/c Government Rent Receipt No.712140
Exhibit-2/d Government Rent Receipt No.021605
Exhibit-3 C.C. of NAC Khata No.1182
Exhibit-4 C.C. of order-sheet of Demarcation Case No.41/96-97
Exhibit-5 C.C. of order-sheet of Misc. Case No.01/83-8428
(2025:JHHC:16068Exhibit-6 C.C not final Khatiyan of Plot Nos.444 and 445 of
Mouza NAC Ward no.11
Exhibit-7 C.C. of Form ‘M’ (rent roll)
61. The defendants examined two witnesses in order to rebut the
case of the plaintiff. DW-1 is Surukuni Nayak who is the Defendant
No.1 in the suit and DW-2 is Bhim Nayak. The defendants did not
adduce any documentary evidence in support of their case.
62. DW-1 filed his examination-in-chief on affidavit stating that
she is the Defendant No.1 in the suit. She further stated that the
disputed land situated over Mouza- Bara Gamharia, Ward No.11 is
recorded as Anabad Bihar Sarkar in the recent survey Khata No.1182
and in the old survey Khata also, it was in the name of Bihar Sarkar.
She further stated that the recent Plot No.443 is recorded in the name
of Jiwan Krishna Deo and recent Plot No.444 is recorded in the name
of Jahiruddin son of Sheikh Lal. She stated that after taking the
disputed land from Jiwan Krishna Deo, Jahiruddin had given
possession of the land to her ancestor Bindheshwar Nayek and
thereafter his son namely, Chamru Nayek and his descendants, who
are the defendants, are in possession over the disputed land for the last
60 years to the knowledge of all concerned. She further stated that
Bholanath Choudhary and the plaintiff are claiming to evict her on the
basis of illegal documents and they have also not impleaded the State
Government as a party in the suit. She further stated that Latifan Bibi
has no relation with the original raiyat namely, Jahiruddin. She also
stated that her husband namely, Late Chamru Nayek was never a
worker of Bholanath Choudhary or his son. She also stated that the
plaintiff has deliberately valued the suit at an exorbitant high value of
Rs.50,00,000/-. She stated that the suit is fit to be dismissed. During
cross-examination, she admitted that she has not seen the documents
of the land of Bindeshwar Nayek, who was her father-in-law and she
has not seen the documents of the land of Jahiruddin. She further
admitted that her husband used to do work of labour and the disputed
land consists of five rooms, but only one room is involved in the case
29
(2025:JHHC:16068
as disputed. She also admitted that to show the title of the disputed
land or room, she never possessed any document either in the name of
her father-in-law or husband or herself or her sons-daughters. She also
admitted that she has not filed any counter claim petitioner in the suit.
She also admitted that her husband has never filed any application in
the Circle Office for settlement or fixation of rent of the disputed
house or land and her husband or father-in-law had never tried to
record the disputed land in their names at the time of survey. She
further admitted that she does not pay the rent, nor her husband had
ever paid any rent to the Government for the disputed land.
63. DW-2 is the son of Defendant No.1. He filed his examination-
in-chief on affidavit stating that he is Defendant No.5 is the suit. He
stated the same facts more or less as stated by DW-1, his mother. In
addition, he stated that he has filed one application in the circle office
for settlement of the disputed land. During cross-examination, he
admitted that he has never seen any document related to the disputed
land in the name of his father or grandfather. He further admitted that
he has no claim over Plot Nos. 426 and 427 of Khata No.753, Mouza-
Bara Gamharia.
Points of Determination Nos. (i) and (ii)
64. This Court finds that Form ‘M’ (Exhibit-7) is related to rent-roll
showing fair and equitable rent or ground-rent determined under
Sections 5, 6 or 7 of Bihar Land Reforms Act and the certified copy of
the order-sheet of Misc. Case No.01/83-84 (Exhibit-5) shows that the
disputed property is recorded in the name of Bholanath Choudhary,
the father of the plaintiff and the Government rent receipts (Exhibits-
2, 2/a, 2/b, 2/c and 2/d) produced by the plaintiff also supports the
claim of the plaintiff-respondent, whereas the defendants-appellants
have not adduced any documentary evidence in support of their claim
over the room situated on the south-eastern portion of the suit land.
65. This Court further finds that the plaintiff has exhibited the
Registered Deed of Lease No.3482 dated 19.11.2014 (Exhibit-1) by
which Bholanath Choudhary, the father of the plaintiff had transferred
30
(2025:JHHC:16068
the suit land on lease in favour of the plaintiff and since then, he is in
possession over the disputed land having lease rights.
66. This Court further finds that neither the Form ‘M’ granted to
the plaintiff’s father, nor the order of rent fixation passed in Misc.
Case No.01/83-84 has ever been challenged by the defendants or by
any other person or authority and the said order has attained finality.
67. This Court further finds that all the witnesses examined by the
plaintiff have supported the case of the plaintiff that the father of the
plaintiff namely, Bholanath Choudhary had constructed one room on
the south-eastern portion and had constructed one house having three
rooms on the southern portion of the disputed land and on the request
of Chamru Nayek who was working as helper under the father of the
plaintiff, Chamru Nayek was permitted to reside in the room on the
south-eastern portion of the suit land. Later on, Chamru Nayek
alongwith his family continued to reside in the room with permission
of his father. The witnesses of the plaintiff have also supported the
case of the plaintiff that after death of Chamru Nayek, the plaintiff
permitted the defendants to reside in the south-eastern room of the
disputed land and on the basis of the said permission, the defendants
are presently residing there. Accordingly, this Court finds that the
plaintiff has sufficiently proved that he has right, title and interest over
the suit property and the appellants/defendants were/are residing in the
room situated on the south-eastern portion of the suit land with
permissive possession of either the father of the plaintiff or the
plaintiff.
68. This Court finds that the plaintiff-respondent has got valid
right, title and interest over the suit land and he is entitled to get
vacant possession of the suit premises by evicting the defendants from
the suit land through the process of court.
69. This Court further finds that the defendants-appellants have
been illegally occupying the room situated on the south-eastern
portion of the suit land in which Chamru Nayek, the labourer of the
plaintiff’s father was residing under permissive possession of the
31
(2025:JHHC:16068
plaintiff’s father and after his death, the defendants are residing under
permissive possession of the plaintiff.
70. This court is of the considered view that the learned trial court
has considered the materials on record and has rightly recorded that
the defendant in this case has not adduced any documentary evidence,
rather the Government Rent Receipt No.419600 (Ext. 2), Government
Rent Receipt No.724516 (Ext. 2/a), Government Rent Receipt
No.1062654 (Ext. 2/b), Government Rent Receipt No.712140 (Ext.
2/c), Government Rent Receipt No.021605 (Ext.2/d) issued in the
name of Bholanath Choudhary substantiated right of Bholanath
Choudhary upon the suit land the total area 23 decimals pertaining to
Khata No.753A. The learned court also rightly recorded that
possession of Bholanath Choudhary was also confirmed by the fact
that the disputed land also showed the possession of Seikh Jahiruddin
since 1952 and after his death, the possession was given by Latifan
Bibi to Bholanath Choudhary and held that the evidence adduced by
the plaintiff proved that Bholanath Choudhary was in possession of
the suit land.
71. This court also finds that the learned trial court rightly arrived
at the findings that all his legal heirs including Raju Choudhary, the
son of Bholanath Choudhary, had inherited the similar right upon the
land in dispute and therefore, the plaintiff was entitled for declaration
of right, title and interest over the suit land and that the defendants’
possession over the suit land of the plaintiff was permissive
possession. The learned trial court rightly held that the plaintiff was
entitled to get the vacant possession of the suit land as described in
schedule of the plaint by evicting the defendants from the suit
premises and the suit land by the process of the court.
72. In view of the aforesaid findings, the Points of Determination
Nos. (i) and (ii) are decided against the defendants-appellants and in
favour of the plaintiff-respondent.
Points of Determination Nos. (iii) and (iv)
32
(2025:JHHC:16068
73. Since this Court has already held under Points of Determination
Nos. (i) and (ii) that the plaintiff has got valid right, title and interest
over the suit land and the defendants-appellants have been occupying
the room situated on the south-eastern portion of the suit land only by
way of permissive possession given to the defendants/their
predecessor in interest , this Court is of the view that the defendants-
appellants have failed to make out any case in their favour.
74. Accordingly, the Points of Determination Nos. (iii) and (iv)
are also decided against the defendants-appellants and in favour of
the plaintiff-respondent.
75. A point has been raised by the learned counsel for the
appellants that the suit was barred by limitation and it was the duty of
the learned court to consider the point of limitation even if no such
plea is raised by the defendants. This court finds that the plaintiffs
have proved that the defendants were in permissive possession of the
room mentioned in the suit premises and they have also proved that
the cause of action arose when the defendants refused to vacate the
suit premises on 23.12.2016. The learned trial court has also recorded
a finding upon consideration of the materials on record that the cause
of action arose on 23.12.2016 and the suit having been filed on
06.02.2017, the plaintiffs had valid cause of action and the suit was
filed within the period of limitation. The findings have been rightly
arrived by the learned trial court. This finding was recorded while
deciding Issue Nos. 1 and 2 in Paragraph- 15 of the impugned
judgement.
76. This court has gone through the judgement passed by the
learned trial court and finds that every aspect of the matter and all the
materials on record have been duly considered in details and the
findings of the learned trial court has already been quoted above. The
learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to point out any
illegality or perversity in the matter of appreciation of evidences
placed on record.
33
(2025:JHHC:16068
77. This Court holds that the suit has been rightly decreed.
Consequently, this first appeal is hereby dismissed.
78. Pending, I.A, if any is dismissed as not pressed.
79. Let a copy of this Judgment be communicated to the concerned
court through “Fax/E-mail”.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Rakesh/-Binit
34