RANCHI, India, Jan. 14 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Dec. 15:

1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 21.07.2022 (decree signed on 04.08.2022) passed by the learned District Judge-I, Seraikella-Kharsawan in Civil Appeal No. 40 of 2011 affirming the judgment dated 30.06.2011 (decree signed on 11.07.2011) in Title Suit No. 111 of 2007 passed by learned Additional Munsif, Civil Courts, Seraikella-Kharsawan.

2. The suit has been dismissed by the learned trial court and the judgment of the learned trial Court was affirmed by the learned 1st appellate Court. Consequently, the plaintiffs are the appellants before this Court.

3. The suit was filed for the following reliefs:-

a. For a declaration that the suit land is the purchased land of the plaintiff's mother and the plaintiffs have got a right, title, interests over the same.

b. For confirmation of possession and in alternative if the plaintiffs are found to be dispossessed then for recovery of khas possession.

c. For declaration that the sale deed No. 2813 dated 06.06.1992 is nothing but a false and fabricated fake deed and the same was never acted upon and the same is fraudulently obtained and the same is not binding against the plaintiffs or anybody else since there was no existence of land of the said area mentioned in the deed.

d. For a permanent injunction restraining the defendant to disturb the plaintiffs suit land area.

e. For cost of the suit. f. For any other relief or reliefs for which the plaintiff's are found to be entitled.

4. The appeal was admitted vide order dated 06th February, 2025. On 06th February, 2025 only one substantial question of law was framed and thereafter, one additional substantial question of law has been framed vide order dated 18th June, 2025 by submitting that it was admitted fact from the plaint itself that Gunadhar Ghosh was left with 13 decimals of land out of total land of 19 and half decimals after he had sold 6 and half decimal of land to the defendants. Thus, there are two substantial questions of law to be answered in this appeal which are as follows: -

"I. Whether both the learned courts below erred in not considering that when the defendants have admitted the sale deed executed by Gunadhar Ghose in favour of plaintiffs and further admitted that original raiyat (Jagannath Napit & his son Gopal Napit) had sold some plots of land to Gunadhar Ghose and further came with a defence that Gunadhar Ghose did not have possession of 9 decimals of land rather only 6 and half decimals, then onus of proving of such facts was with the defendants?

II. Whether both the learned courts erred in not considering the admitted case of the defendants, that Gunadhar Ghose was left with 13 decimals of land out of his total land of 19 and half decimals, after he had sold 6 and half decimals of land to defendants and further when plaintiffs proved their possession over 9 decimals of land purchased from Gunadhar Ghose by way of registered sale deed, mutation and rent receipts, plaintiffs were successful in proving their right, title and interest over the suit land?

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=zDLovBVSUw02H8XukOjXfO3U0HZ3LAVrDpCyDxKzXYCaHd67XxGCIZeUFCD9msP7&caseno=SA/190/2022&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010415722022&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.