Patna High Court
Bihar through the Collector, BhagalpurversusAsha Devi
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- KHATIM REZA
Holding
The appeal is dismissed; the lower courts' determination that the respondents are the rightful raiyat and possessors of the land stands.
Summary
The State of Bihar appealed a judgment that upheld the title and possession of Asha Devi and Baijnath Gupta over a disputed land parcel, based on documentary evidence such as a Hukumnama, rent receipts and a Return filed under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. The lower courts found that the plaintiffs’ father, Kedar Sah, was the raiyat of the land from 1955 and that the State’s claim of forged documents was unsupported. The State argued that the exhibits were fabricated and that the plaintiffs had no lawful title, but it produced only a single informal witness and no substantive proof. The High Court, noting that the plaintiffs had created a high degree of probability and that the burden shifted to the State, held that the lower courts’ findings were correct and that there was no substantial question of law. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed at the admission stage under Order XLI Rule 11 of the CPC, and the interlocutory application for condoning delay was allowed.
Issues considered
- The validity and genuineness of the documents (Hukumnama, rent receipts, Return) relied upon by the plaintiffs.
- Whether the burden of proof shifted to the State after the plaintiffs established a high probability of title.
- Whether the appellate court erred in upholding the lower courts' findings on title and possession.
- Whether any question of law arises warranting interference with the lower courts' decision.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order XLI Rule 11
- Limitation Act, 1963 — s. Section 5
Subjects
- title suit
- land reforms
- raiyat
- burden of proof
- document authenticity
- appeal
- limitation
- encroachment proceeding
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
SECOND APPEAL No.312 of 2025
======================================================
1. The State of Bihar through the Collector, Bhagalpur.
2. The Deputy Director of Health, Bhagalpur.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. Asha Devi, wife of Baijnath Gupta,
2. Baijnath Gupta, son of Late Kedar Sah,
Both resident of Mohalla- Bhokanpur, Kotwali, within Municipal
Corporation, District- Bhagalpur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Sajid Salim Khan, Senior Advocate (SC 25)
Ms. Saobiya Mushtaque, Advocate
Mr. Yasir Ashraf, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Pushkar Narayan Shahi, Senior Advocate
Mr. Samir Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Ankur Gond, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KHATIM REZA
ORAL ORDER
6 02-02-2026 Heard Mr. Sajid Salim Khan, learned senior counsel
(SC 25) for the appellants-State and Mr. Pushkar Narayan
Shahi, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Samir Kumar,
learned counsel for the respondents.
Interlocutory Application No.01 of 2025
2. This interlocutory application has been filed by the
appellants under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning
the delay in filing the present appeal.
3. Heard learned senior counsel for both the sides.
4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the
Patna High Court SA No.312 of 2025(6) dt.02-02-2026
2/9
case and ground mentioned therein, the delay in filing the
appeal is condoned.
5. Interlocutory Application No.01 of 2025 stands
allowed.
Second Appeal No.312 of 2025
6. This second appeal has been filed against the
judgment and decree of affirmance dated 16.11.2024 passed by
the District Judge, X, Bhagalpur, in Title Appeal No.33 of 2011
whereby judgment and decree dated 28.02.2011 passed by the
Sub Judge, VII, Bhagalpur, in Title Suit No.208 of 1998 has
been upheld.
7. From the submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and the materials on record as well as the judgments and
decree of the Courts below, it is quite clear that the appellate
Court, which is the final Court of facts, after considering the
pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced by them,
came to a clear finding that the plaintiffs have established and
proved their right, title and interest on the basis of the
documentary evidence as well as oral evidence. It is further held
that Ext.5 (Return) filed by the ex-landlord shows that the father
of the plaintiff no.2 was the raiyat of the aforesaid disputed land
under Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, and, accordingly, rent was
Patna High Court SA No.312 of 2025(6) dt.02-02-2026
3/9
fixed in favour of the father of the plaintiff no. 2, namely, Kedar
Sah in the year 1955, just after vesting of zamindari and the
government had accepted him as raiyat of the said land, and,
accordingly, the government issued rent receipt on 13.04.1955
which continued till the year 1994. Before vesting of zamindari,
the ex-landlord settled the suit land through Hukumnama (Ext.-
4) in favour of father of plaintiff no.2, followed by the rent
receipts (Ext.-2/A and 2/B) issued by the ex-intermediary and at
the time of vesting of the Estate, the ex-landlord submitted
Return (Ext.-5) in favour of Kedar Sah (father of plaintiff no. 2)
and the Return was accepted by the State. However, an
encroachment proceeding was initiated by the Anchal Adhikari
in the year 1994-95, which also reveals that the plaintiffs were
in possession of the suit land.
8. On the application of the father of plaintiff no. 2,
the information report (Ext.1/A) was supplied by the Circle
Officer, Jagdishpur, to the father of plaintiff no. 2 on 05.08.1995
with regard to the suit land which shows that the information
was given by the Circle Officer, Jagdishpur, that the rent receipt
was issued on 09.02.1960 and 15.08.1963 and the landlord of
the suit land was J. M. Kanti. The said report was compared by
the then Clerk of the Office of Anchal Adhikari, Jagdishpur.
Patna High Court SA No.312 of 2025(6) dt.02-02-2026
4/9
Thus, the claim of the plaintiffs over the said land clearly proves
by Ext.-1/A, which was issued by the Circle Officer, Jagdishpur.
9. The learned Appellate Court also perused Exhibit 1,
which is the report of the Pleader Commissioner dated
09.07.1996, which shows that an old building was found on the
suit land situated in Bikhanpur, Plot No. 783, Area 27 decimals.
The witnesses such as P.Ws. 2 3, 4 as well as other witnesses
have supported the claim of the plaintiffs and it proves that the
plaintiffs were in continuance possession of the suit land since
1946 to 1994-95. The plaintiffs have acquired the title as Kaymi
Raiyat over the suit land. Since, the ex-landlord i.e., J. M. Kanti
accepted the rent vide Exts. 2/A and 2/B and the rent was fixed
by the State of Bihar hence, they are the settled raiyat over the
suit land by virtue of Return (Ext.-5). The learned Appellate
Court affirmed the findings of the Trial Court that the plaintiffs
have got the aforesaid land in the capacity of raiyat from the ex-
landlord J. M. Kanti in 1946 through settlement by Hukumnama
(Ext.-4) followed by rent receipts. The entries made in the R.S.
Khatiyan in the name of State of Bihar is wrong in respect of the
suit land and declared that the plaintiffs have perfected their
right, title and possession over the suit land and the defendants
have no concern over the suit land.
Patna High Court SA No.312 of 2025(6) dt.02-02-2026
5/9
10. The learned first Appellate Court also discussed
the pleadings and the evidence adduced by them and observed
that the defendants have adduced only one witness in support of
their pleadings, namely, Kapil Deo Mahto (DW 1), who is a
formal witness. He identified Register-II which was marked as
Exts. A, A/1 and A/2. This witness has admitted in the cross-
examination that it doesn’t clear from Register-II that the said
suit land belongs to the Health Department or not and there is no
any other documentary evidence on the record except Register-
II in support of the defendants case. Hence, the learned trial
Court held that there is no any evidence on record to prove the
title of the defendants over the suit land. On the basis of above
findings, the learned Appellate Court held that the plaintiffs
have right, title and interest over the suit land and the defendants
have no authority to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit land.
Accordingly, the appeal filed by the State of Bihar was
dismissed.
11. Both the courts below after considering the
pleadings and evidence of the parties came to a definite
conclusion that the right, title and earlier possession of the
plaintiffs was proved by the valid documents such as
Hukumnama (Ext.-4) issued by the ex-landlord, zamindari rent
Patna High Court SA No.312 of 2025(6) dt.02-02-2026
6/9
receipts (Exts. 2/A and 2/B), Return (Ext.-5) issued by the ex-
landlord in favour of the father of plaintiff no. 2, Kedar Sah,
with regard to the suit land and the government rent receipt for
the year 1955 (Ext.-2). Both the courts also relied upon Ext.
1/A, which is the information report of Circle Officer which
shows that an information was sought for by the plaintiff’s
father, namely, Kedar Sah from the then Circle Officer in the
year 1995 regarding the suit land. Thereafter, the concerned
Circle Officer has given information on 05.08.1995 with regard
to the suit land which is in the name of Kedar Sah, son of Ram
Ekbal Sah, Area 9 kattha that rent receipt was issued on
09.02.1960 and 15.08.1963. The ex-landlord was J. M. Kanti;
this document also proves the case of the plaintiffs.
12. The case of the defendants is that the Hukumnama
is forged and manufactured document and no Return was filed
by the ex-landlord with regard to the alleged Jamabandi No. 37,
which is also forged and fabricated.
13. It is a settled position of law that in a suit for
declaration of title and possession, once the plaintiff has been
able to create a high degree of probability so as to shift the onus
on the defendant, it is for the defendant to discharge his onus.
This principle has been decided in the case of R.V.E.
Patna High Court SA No.312 of 2025(6) dt.02-02-2026
7/9
Venkatachala Gounder vs. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P.
Temple [R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu
Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple, (2003) 8 SCC 752].
14. The defendants have failed to prove that the
Return filed by the plaintiffs (Ext.-5) is forged and fabricated
and without any supporting evidence. The Collector of the
District is the custodian of all the revenue receipts including the
Return filed by the ex-landlord. It is admitted by the defendants
that J. M. Kanti was the ex-landlord. No any other Return was
filed by the State of Bihar to prove that the plaintiffs father,
namely, Kedar Sah was not the raiyat of the ex-landlord J. M.
Kanti.
15. Both the courts below disbelieved the bald plea of
the defendants/appellants that the exhibits of the plaintiffs are
forged. The concurrent finding of the facts on the genuineness
of the exhibits cannot be permitted to be assailed in second
appeal as the view taken by the courts below was one of the
possible view and is not open to substitute by re-appreciation of
evidence. Except Register-II, the defendants have not filed any
other document to demolish the case of the plaintiffs. Moreover,
the suit land was settled by the ex-landlord by a Hukumnama
followed by rent receipts and at the time of vesting of
Patna High Court SA No.312 of 2025(6) dt.02-02-2026
8/9
zamindari, the ex-landlord J. M. Kanti filed Return (Ext.-5) in
favour of father of plaintiff no. 2 and the said Return was
accepted by the State of Bihar and rent was fixed under Bihar
Land Reforms Act, 1950, rent receipt was issued on 13.04.1955
and Jamabandi was created in favour of the father of plaintiff
no. 2. The State of Bihar issued rent receipt till 1994 i.e., before
filing of encroachment proceeding, which the defendant also
failed to prove. There is no material on record to disprove the
Return (Ext.-5) and rent issued by the State of Bihar (Ext.-2)
dated 13.04.1955. Further, there is no material on record to
show that any appeal was filed by the State Government against
the acceptance of Return filed by the ex-landlord under the
Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950.
16. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of
the case and the submissions made by learned senior counsel for
the parties, this Court does not find any irregularity in the
concurrent findings of both the courts below and no question of
law, much less, substantial question of law is involved in this
second appeal.
17. Accordingly, this second appeal is dismissed at the
stage of admission under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of
Civil Procedure.
Patna High Court SA No.312 of 2025(6) dt.02-02-2026
9/9
18. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, shall
stand disposed of.
(Khatim Reza, J)
J. Alam/-
prabhat/-
U
Checking your session…