IN,

THE COURT OF JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER

RANCHI

TITLE APPEAL NO. /2021

APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CIVIL

PROCEDURE CODE 1908

NANKU MAHTO Son of Late Jagtu

Mahto by sex male by Caste
Kumhar by profession famer
aged about 62 years resident
of village Tupudana, police
Station Hatia, District
Ranchi, Aadhar No. 6084 5396
5192
Versus
1.Baldeo Mahto son of Banu Mahto
By caste Kumhar, by profession
farmer resident of village
Tuppudane kumhar Toli police
sation Dhurwa District Ranchi.
2.Indu Devi wife of Pankaj Dubey
by caste Brahmin resident of
q.NO. D.T 1430 p.o Dhurwa P.S.
Dhurwa District: Ranchi
3.Bijendra Kumar son of
Ramswaroop Prasad by Caste
Yadav, by profession Business
 resident of Ashok Nagar, Road
No1, No’s C/34, Argora
District Ranchi.
4.Rakesh Singh son of Kedar Nath
Singh
5.Smt Rita Devi wife of Rakesh
Nath Singh both by caste
Rajput by Profession Business
and house wife, both resident
of North Office Para, Police
Station Doronda District
Ranchi.

Suit value Rs. 18,000/-

Appeal value Rs. 18,000/-

Being aggrieved by and

dissatisfied by Judgement and
Decree dated 25th February
2020(decree signed on
15/03/2020) passed by Sri Anuj
Kumar learned Additional
Munsif (Junior Division)
Decreeing Title Suit No. 209
of 2010, the
Plaintiff/Appellant beg to
prefer this Appeal on the
following grounds:

MOST RESPECTFULLY SWETH:

FACT OF THE CASE

1.That the land measuring an area 22 decimals being
Revisional Survey plot No. 511 under khata No. 72
situated at village Tupudana Thana No 267 Thana
Ranchi(old) Dhuruwa(new) within the Town and
District of Ranchi in the state of Jharkhand were
recorded in the names of Bijay Nath Sahdeo and
 Lal Gokul Nath Sahdeo both sons of Late Bhim Nath
Sahdeo.
2.That in Revisional Survey Record of Right the
nature of the land was recorded as kaymi and
above-named Lal Bijay Nath Sahdeo and Lal Gokul
Nath Sahdeo both sons of Late Bhim Nath Sahdeo
were recorded tenant of the same.
3.That in the life time of above-named recorded
tenant they sold entire land of plot No. 511
under khata No. 72 measuring an area 1.02 Acre
situated at village Tupudana, Thana No. 267,
within the Town and District of Ranchi in the
state of Jharkhand to one namely Kolhin Devi wife
of Late Banu Mahato.
4.That said Kolhin Devi wife of Late Banu Mahato
became the absolute owner of land by virtue of
registered deed of sale which was registered
before the office of the District Sub Registrar
Ranchi and the same was entered in Book No. I,
Volume No. 560, pages 128 to 130 being deed No.
6869 serial No. 7152 of the year 1953 dated
06/10/1953.
5.That said Kolhin Devi wife of Late Banu Mahato
after becoming absolute owner of the same mutated
her name before the serista of circle Officer
Namom Anchal Ranchi and by paying rent to the
state maintaining peaceful possession over the
same.
6.That on passing of time above named Kolhin Devi
wife of Late Banu Mahato was died leaving her
four sons namely Jagtu Mahato, Fouda Mahato,
Bhikhu Mahato and Baldeo Mahato.
7.That to avoid further litigation and complication
in the life timed of above named Kolhin Devi she
equally distributed her purchased land amongst
her four sons which she acquired through the
registered deed of sale.
8.That as a result of above said distribution all
the four sons of said Kolhin Devi acquired twenty
fiver and half decimals of land being Revisional
Survey plot No. 511 under khata No. 72 of village
Tupudana District Ranchi.
9.That after passing of few years said Kolhin Devi
was died leaving behind her above named four sons
as her legal heir and successor.
10. That after passing of few years one Jagtu
Mahato son of Late Klohin Devi was also died
leaving behind his four sons namely Nanku Mahato
(Appellant/Plaintiff), Kashi Nath Mahato, Krishna
Mahato and Sagar Mahato as his legal heir and
successor.
11. That the Defendant No. 1 namely Baldeo Mahato
who is the son of Late Kolhin Dive and who
acquired his share over the plot No. 511 under
khata No. 72 of village Tupudana was suffering by
acute financial crisis in the year 2000.
12. That to overcome the above said financial
problem Defendant No.1 offered to Plaintiff to
purchase 22 decimals of land out of Twenty-five
and half decimals of land being Revisional Survey
plot No. 511 under Khata No. 72 of village
Tupudana which is the suit land of this present
Appeal.
13. That the Plaintiff/Appellant accept the offer
made by the Defendant No1 and ready to purchase
the same from the Defendant/Respondent No.1 at a
total consideration amount of Rs.18,000/-.
14. That it not possible to execute and register
the sale deed as the parties decided to enter
into a written agreement (sada kewala).
15. That thereafter the Defendant/Respondent No. 1
put the Plaintiff in permissive possession over
the land and from that time the Plaintiff
 enjoying his every right title interest and
possession over the said area of land.
16. That thereafter the plaintiff several times
requested the Defendant/Respondent No.1 to
execute and register the sale deed in his favor
but the Defendant No.1 always install the matter.
17. That the several requests made by the
Plaintiff/Appellant on 25/11/2005 the
Defendant/Respondent executed an affidavit in
favor of the Plaintiff/Appellant stating therein
that the Plaintiff/Appellant is original owner of
the said land and he is in peaceful possession
over the same and th4e Defendant/Respondent
having no interest over the same.
18. That the Plaintiff/Appellant at the time of
execution the above said Affidavit requested the
Defendant/Respondent to execute and register the
sale deed regarding the suit land but the
Defendant/Respondent assured his that he will do
the same with a very short span of time.
19. That in the year 2008 the Plaintiff/Appellant
any how got knowledge that the
Defendant/Respondent falsely and fabricated
executed the sale deed regarding the suit land to
Respondent No. 2,3,4 and 5.
20. That thereafter finding no way plaintiff/
appellant brought this suit before the learned
court below with the following prayer
A)That a decree to be passed declaring that the
plaintiff had got indefeasible and absolute
right over the suit land.
B)A decree may be passed confirming the peaceful
possession over the suit land of the plaintiff.
C)A decree may be passed to give possession of
the suit land of the plaintiff is not in
possession of the suit land.
 D)An order may be passed to directing the
defendant No.1 to execute and register the sale
deed in favor of the plaintiff.
D. (1) a decree may be passed that if the
Defendants is not ready to execute and register
the sale deed in favor of the plaintiff
regarding the suit property then the same may
be done through the process of the court.
Added vide order dated 18/04/2019.
E)For that a decree, be passed declaring that the
sale deed dated 28.08.2007 and subsequent dated
purportedly executed by Defendant NO.1 in favor
of Defendant No. 2 to 5 are all bogous shame
paper transaction and the same are absolutely
null and void and none of said documents have
affected the plaintiffs valid title, interest
and possession over the suit land.
F)A decree be passed for the cost of the suit.
G)For any other relief or reliefs to which the
plaintiffs may be found entitled in the facts
and circumstances of the case may also be
granted.
21. That thereafter Defendants/ respondents jointly
filed written statements from which it appears
that the defendants/ respondents have not any
specifically case or any counter- claim rather
they just denied the plaintiff’s averment’s which
was made by the plaint.
22. That out of five deferent, defendant no. 3
namely Bijendra Kumaar defendant no. 4 Rakesh
singh and defendant no 5. Rita Devi have been
declared ex- parte ax because neither they filed
any written statement nor they produce any
witness.
23. That after going through several witnesses
adduced by the plaintiff as well as defendant and
several exhibit documents produced by the
plaintiffs and the defendant the learned court
below has declared his decision and dismiss the
plaintiff case.
Certified copy of judgement
and decree passed in title
suit no. 209/2010 is being
annexed herewith annexure I.

Being aggrieved by and

dissatisfied by Judgement and
Decree dated 25th February
2020(decree signed on
15/03/2020) passed by Sri Anuj
Kumar learned Additional
Munsif (Junior Division)
Decreeing Title Suit No. 209
of 2010, the
Plaintiff/Appellant beg to
prefer this Appeal on the
following grounds:
 GROUNDS

1. FOR THAT the judgment and decree of the

learned court below are contrary fact of the

case and against the weight of the matter of

record as such the same is liable to be set-

aside.

2. FOR THAT the learned court below has

gravely erred in dismissing the suit filed by

the Plaintiffs/ Appellants.

3.FOR THAT the lower court below has committed

serious error of law as well as facts.

4. FOR THAT the lower court below has not

properly framed the issue as per the pleading of

the parties.

5. FOR THAT the learned court below has

failed to decide that the suit is filed under

the provision of Specific Relief act or not.

6. FOR THAT the learned court below has

gravely erred in not relying upon the

evidences adduced by the plaintiff.

7. FOR THAT after came into actual physical

possession over the suit property the plaintiff
was exercising the perfect right title and
interest of the suit property.
8. FOR THAT the learned court below has
gravely erred in not relying upon the oral
documentary evidence of adduce on behalf of
and the plaintiff/ appellant.
9. FOR THAT the learned court below ought
to have held that the plaintiff have
miserably failed to prove there right, title,
interest and possession over the suit land
and as such the learned court below had no
option but to dismiss the suit.
10. FOR that the learned court below has

gravely erred in not relying upon the

documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff

such as the agreement took place in between

plaintiff/ appellant and defendant no. 1/

respondent no.1 on 10/10/2000 and the affidavit

executed by defendant/ respondent no. 1 on

23/11/2005 and the other documents produced by

the plaintiff/ appellant at the time of filing

the plaint and other such occasion.

11. FOR THAT the learned court below further

gravely erred in not relying upon the statement

made by the evidences produced by

plaintiff/appellant.

12. FOR THAT the learned court below further

gravely erred in not relying upon the statement

of evidences who very clearly state that the

plaintiff is in possession of the suit property

since the date of agreement that is 10/10/2000.

13. THAT the learned court below has gravely

erred for not relying section 53 of the Transfer

of Property Act.

14. FOR THAT the learned court below has

gravely erred on deciding on the point that the

plaintiff/appellant always willing to part

performing of the agreement dated 10/10/2000 but

the defendant/ respondent no. 1 has failed to do

the same.

15. FOR THAT the learned court below has

gravely erred in not deciding the prayer D1

which is as follows

D (1) A decree may be passed that if the

defendant is not ready to execute and register

the sale deed in favor of the plaintiff

regarding the suit property then the sale may be

don through the process of court Added vide

order dated 18/04/2019

16. For that on perusal of above amendment of

the prayer portion of the plaint it is very

clearly focus on the point that the suit is

concerned with Specific Relief Act but the

learned court below has failed to properly

decide the above issue.

17. FOR THAT the defendant/ respondent no.1

stated in his examination- in- chief and cross

examination that in registered deed of sale he

put his thumb impression but in agreement date

10/10/200 he did not put his thumb impression

and in this regard the plaintiff/ appellant

filed a petition for inquiring the same through

hand expert but the learned court below without

disposing the same petition passed final order

in this said case.

18. FOR THAT the appellant has been greatly

prejudiced due to that.

19. FOR THAT the judgement and decree of the

learned court below is otherwise bad in law.

20. FOR THAT the other and further ground

shall be urged at the time of hearing.

PRAYER

It is therefore prayed your

hounr may graciously be

pleased to admit this appeal

AND

Futher be pleased to call for

record from the court below

and after hering the parties

be pleased to allow this

appeal and set aside the

judgement and decree passed

in title suit no.209/2010 by

learned court below.

AND

For this kind action the

petitioner shall ever pray.

 CERTIFICATE

Certified that the matter out of which this

appeal arises never came before this honorable

court at any time earlier.

Certified that the ground taken in this appeal

are good ground which shall be supported at the

time of hearing of this appeal.

Certified that no notice is required to be

served on the learned advocate of Jharkhand

under order 27 rule I of civil procedure code.

Advocate Ranchi
 AFFIDAVIT

I NANKU MAHTO s/o Late Jagtu Mahto by sex male

by profession Farmer aged about 62 years

resident of village Tupudana police Station

Ranchi district Ranchi do hereby solemnly

affirm and declare as here under

1.That I am sole appellant in this case as

such fully acquainted with the facts and

circumstances of this case.

2.That the statement made in this memo of

appeal have been read over to me and

explained to me in Hindi which I have fully

understood and found the same is correct.

3.That the statement made in this memo of

appeal are true to the best of my knowledge

and belief.

Sworn and signed at Ranchi on this the 16th

day of August 2021.

Deponent

Identified by me
Advocate Ranchi.