Loak Nath Sao And Ors vs State Of Jharkhand represented by Deputy Commissioner And Ors

This appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 2nd June, 2009 (decree signed on 12.06.2009), passed by the Additional District Judge, F.T.C.-I, Dhanbad, in Title Appeal No. 99 of 2006, by which the learned Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal by upholding the judgment dated 04.05.2006, passed in Title Suit No. 37 of 1996 (B), passed by the Munsif-1st, Dhanbad.

The appellants were the plaintiffs in the suit and the appellants before the first appellate court. The judgment passed by the Additional District Judge, F.T.C.-I, Dhanbad, is thus the judgment of confirmation.

The plaintiffs-appellants herein preferred a suit being Title Suit No. 37/96(B), and prayed for a decree in respect of the suit property to the effect that they are entitled to retain possession of the land and they claimed title over the suit property. They claimed that they cannot be deprived from enjoying possession of the property and prayed for permanent injunction in their favour against the defendants and their officers.

The plaintiffs claimed that they are in possession of the suit land for more than 37 years and they are using the same without interference from any corner. It has been further disclosed that during the survey settlement in Village Karanpura, plot no. 557 was divided in two plots 600/557, 601/557 whose new khata no. 91 and old khata no. 18 and the total area of the two plots are one acre and 92 decimals which falls in the share of plaintiff no. 1 and 2 equally. In this way the village Maheshpur old plot no. 276 and in survey vide new plot no. 305 and their new khata no. becomes 257 area 45 decimals which is in Awaidh Dakhal of the son of Mahesh Sao plaintiff no. 3 and Mauza Maheshpur plot no. 276 converted into new plots no. 204 and 302 and new khata no. becomes 297 and the area of the said plots are 24-30 decimals. It has been further submitted by the plaintiff in the plaint that they have obtained right, title and interest over the above mentioned plot by way of adverse possession and as such the defendant have no right title and interest and possession of the suit land but in spite of the said fact the defendants are forcibly wants to disposed the plaintiff from the suit land and as a result the employees of defendants started cutting the soil from the land. It has been further disclosed that Circle Officer, Baghmara had passed an order to cut the earth soil from the suit land and prepare a pond on the suit land in the year 1996 without having right, title and interest over suit land which is the only source of livelihood of the plaintiffs.

The defendants appeared and filed their written statement taking ground that merely by opening Thoka (Register-II) in the name of the plaintiffs and paying rent, is not conclusive prove of the title. The possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land is disputed. It is the case of the State that the rent receipt was issued without backing of any order passed from the competent authority. The property belongs to the State and is recorded as Tank in the Sairat register.

The trial court framed seven relevant issues and thereafter, considering the same, dismissed the suit. The appeal also stood dismissed.

I have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants at length and have gone through the records. The main relief sought for by the plaintiffs-appellants is declaration of their right, title and interest. Five witnesses were produced by the plaintiffs-appellants and several documents were exhibited. The court below after going through the khatian came to the conclusion that the khatian was not finally prepared and is not the final khatian and has held that since the khatian is not final, does not carry much evidentiary value. The Court also concluded that the rent receipt is not the conclusive proof of evidence as the plaintiffs have not brought any records or any order to suggest that there is an order of rent fixation in their favour. No documents were produced to prove possession over the land in question. The Court also held that the claim of the plaintiffs that the land was settled in BPLE case no. 7/02/80-81, cannot be accepted as no any order or document, in relation to the said case, was filed. It is only on the oral statement, the plaintiffs want to prove possession over the land in question. The Courts below also held that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their right, title and interest over the land in question and thus, decided the suit and the appeal against the plaintiffs-appellants.

After going through the records, I find that both the Courts gave the concurrent findings that the plaintiffs-appellants failed to prove by cogent evidence their right, title and interest. Whether the plaintiffs-appellants have got any right, title or interest is an absolute question of fact. Both the Courts, on facts, have held that the plaintiffs-appellants do not have any right, title and interest over the land in question nor possess the same.

There is no substantial question of law involved in this case, which, if answered in favour of the appellants, can reverse the finding of both the Courts below, which is on fact. Thus, I find no merits in this appeal. Both the judgments, which give concurrent findings of fact, need no interference. This appeal, in absence of any substantial question of law, is thus, dismissed.