In Deomuni Devi & Ors. vs. Ram Autar Mahto & Ors. (2026), Justice Ashok Kumar Pandey of Patna High Court delivered a 26-page long judgement dated February 2, 2026, wherein, he concluded:".... it is clear that Ramjhari Devi was the daughter of Devnarayan Mahto, and as she was the daughter of Devnarayan Mahato, she has executed the sale deeds in favor of Defendant Nos. 2 and 3, which is legal and binding. And as far as the claim of the plaintiffs regarding title on the basi of adverse possession is concerned, the same is not properly pleaded and proved. 65. Therefore, the findings of the learned trial court are erroneous and perverse. As such, the judgment and decree of the learned trial court is hereby set aside. 66. In result, this appeal is allowed. 67. Office is directed to draw decree accordingly."
The first appeal was preferred against the judgment and decree dated July 28, 1990 passed by 8th Subordinate Judge, Chapra in a Title Suit of 1985, wherein and whereunder the suit was decreed with cost. The plaintiffs/respondents had filed the Title Suit in 1985 for declaring their title on the disputed land and also for delivery of possession if the Plaintiffs are found dispossessed from any part of the disputed property.
The case of the plaintiffs/respondents was that they be deemed as a part of the plaint. From perusal of the , it will be clear that Ram Bhajju Mahto was the ancestor of the Plaintiff's family. Ram Bhajju Mahto had two sons: Hitlal Mahto and Sukan Mahto. Hitlal was the elder son. Family was joint. Hitlal Mahto had a son, Dev Narayan Mahto, who died issueless 45 years ago; his wife had predeceased him. It was also submitted that in the RS Survey, all the joint family property along with other co-parceners was entered in Khata Number 96. In that RS Survey, the shares of Hitlal Mahto and Sukan Mahto are jointly shown. Before some time of survey, Hitlal Mahto, who was the Karta of the joint family, some lands were purchased in his name from the nucleus of joint family that is entered in Khata Number 129 of RS in the name of Hitlal Mahto, but the possession of both the brothers was there.
It was also the case of the Plaintiffs/Respondents that Hitlal Mahto had separated from his brother in mess and residence, but the lands were not partitioned. Hitlal Mahto was issueless and had love and affection for the Plaintiffs. At the occasion of Dussehra in year 1943, a reunion took place between them. After the death of Hitlal Mahto, all the properties devolved upon Plaintiffs by way of survivorship, and that possession was without any obstruction and the names of Plaintiffs were entered in the records of ex-landlord. And, the Plaintiffs are getting rent receipts after paying the rent. The case of the Plaintiffs was that the title of the Plaintiffs was in continuance since 1950 and was in the knowledge of the Defendants and without their interference; as such, the title of Plaintiffs has been confirmed by way of adverse possession. It was also submitted that the enemies of the Plaintiffs had executed a sale deed in favor of Defendant Numbers 2 and 3, due to which there is some cloud of doubt on the title of the Plaintiff, hence the need for suit. It was further submitted that Defendants had wrongly stated in their written statement that the marriage of Dev Narayan was solemnized with Tetari Devi and Ram Jhari was daughter of Dev Narayan. Dev Narayan was married to one Kailashi Devi, daughter of Dular Chand, resident of Hajipur, who predeceased her husband issueless. Tetari is the daughter of Shivnandan, resident of Basant, and is wife of Kishun Mahto. Ram Jhari is daughter of Kishun Mahto. The case of the Plaintiffs was that the sale deed dated January 2, 1985 executed by Ram Jhari Devi in favor of Triloki Mahto and Dev Muni Devi, Defendant Nos. 2 and 3, was forged and fraudulent and was without consideration. It was also submitted that the deed was not acted upon. Ram Jhari Devi did not have title or possession over the lands of the deed, and the purchasers also did not receive possession of the land at any moment.
At the time of the death of Hitlal Mahto, the Plaintiff had possession over the entire stretch of land, and the sale deed in question is sham and fraudulent. It was also submitted that Hitlal Mahto, Sukan Mahto, Dev Narayan Mahto and the Plaintiff were members of joint family. There was no partition between them. Hitlal Mahto was the Karta of the joint family. And, after the death of Sukan Mahto and Hitlal Mahto, Ram Avtar became the Karta of the joint family. Dev Narayan died in the lifetime of Hitlal.
The lands of the two sale deeds dated January 2, 1985 was detailed in Schedule 1 and 2 of the plaint which was the disputed land.
The counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Trial Court has decreed the suit without considering the fact that the Plaintiff-Respondent had no cause of action. Plaintiff-Respondent is neither the owner nor has right, title, and interest over the suit land. The Trial Court did not consider that the suit property was the self-acquired property of Ram Narayan, who died leaving behind his daughter Ram Jhari Devi, the Appellant, who is the owner of the suit. Ram Jhari Devi sold the same to the Appellant's ancestors who are the rightful owner of the suit property. The story set up by Plaintiff in the pleading was self-contradictory. As such, cannot be relied upon. Learned counsel for the Appellant has submitted that at one place the Plaintiffs-Respondents claim that they are the owner of the disputed land, and in the next para of the plaint, the case of the Plaintiffs is that the title of the Plaintiffs is confirmed by adverse possession. The counsel for the Appellants has submitted that no one can have adverse possession on his own land. Adverse possession is the hostile possession against the real owner. The Appellants' counsel also submitted that the Plaintiffs/Respondents had nowhere stated as to when their possession was hostile to the interest of Appellants as they had claimed that the land belongs to them. It was also submitted that it was well-settled law of pleadings that a Plaintiff cannot make contradictory claims; however, the defendant was at liberty to make contradictory defenses. He submitted that Trial Court could not consider that the question of title by adverse possession does not arise as there cannot be any question of hostile title or possession in joint family property.
The Trial Court did not consider the story of partition and reunion as set up by Plaintiff was false as there was no document of reunion. The Trial Court had not considered that Ram Narayan was the son of Hitlal and Ram Jhari Devi was the daughter of Dev Narayan and grand-daughter of Hitlal. The Trial Court had not considered the documentary evidence that was exhibited wherein Plaintiffs admitted that Ram Jhari was the daughter of Ram Narayan and grand-daughter of Hitlal.
The Trial Court did not consider the admissions by Plaintiff in the Exhibits which completely demolish the case of Plaintiffs. It was submitted that the documentary evidence adduced by the Appellants clearly establish that Ram Jhari Devi is the daughter of Dev Narayan Mahto and grand-daughter of Hitlal. The Trial Court relied on the oral evidences that Ram Jhari gave the document and money to Ram Avtar and the same doe not seem to be true without considering that she in good faith gave the documents and money to her uncle.
The Trial Court failed to consider that the case of the Plaintiff about adverse possession cannot be accepted with the case of title as well. It was further submitted that the Trial Court should have considered the oral evidences of the Appellant and should have disbelieved the PWs. As such, it has been prayed to set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court.
The defendant’s case was that the case of the plaintiffs was not maintainable and the plaintiffs have no title and interest in the suit property. It was said Hitlal had a son: Dev Narayan Mahto who was married to Tetri Devi daughter of Shiv Nandan Mahto of village- Aami and Ram Jhari Devi is their daughter. Khata No. 129 was acquired by Hitlal Mahto after the death of Hitlal Mahto and the death of the parents of Ram Jhari Devi in the lifetime of Hitlal Mahto, the properties came in the possession of Ram Jhari Devi. Khata No. 129 was not acquired through the joint family fund and the same was acquired by the personal income of Hitlal Mahto out of his earnings in Assam and as such, Sukan Mahto or the plaintiff Ram Avtar Mahto had no joint possession along with Hitlal Mahto. Ram Jhari Devi used to manage her properties with the help of the persons of his nanihaal and the usurp was enjoyed by her. Ram Jhari Devi was a plain, simple and illiterate lady and as such, if some documents have been forged and prepared against her, the documents are not binding upon her.
The case of the defendants/appellants was that for meeting her own purposes, the said Ram Jhari Devi executed a sale deed in favour of the defendants and the purchasers/defendants came into possession of the suit property by virtue of the sale deeds executed by Ram Jhari Devi. It was also alleged that the plaintiffs have a larger income than what is shown by them to save the court fee. The case of the defendants was that in case of 685 and 785 under the Ceiling Act, the sale deeds have been accepted by the plaintiffs and a compromise was effected with the defendants. So, the suit was hit by estoppel, waiver and acquiescence.
The counsel for the respondents submitted that the trial court had considered all the documentary and oral evidence of the parties and had rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiffs/respondents. He also submitted that at the stage of first appeal, the High Court can reappraise the evidence and in reappraisal of the evidence, if this Court finds that the finding of the trial court that the plaintiffs have completed their title by adverse possession is superfluous but otherwise, the suit was liable to be decreed then the same may be accordingly made.
The counsel for the respondents brought to the notice relevant provisions of CPC Order 41 Rule 33. Rule 33 reads: Power of Court to appeal- The Appellate Court shall have power to pass any decree and make any order which ought to have been passed or made and to pass or make such further or other decree or order as the case may require, and this power may be exercised by the Court notwithstanding that the appeal is as to part only of the decree and may be exercised in favour of all or any of the respondents or parties, although such respondents or parties may not have filed any appeal or objection and may, where there have been decrees in cross-suits or where two or more decrees are passed in one suit, be exercised in respect of all or any of the decrees, although an appeal may not have been filed against such decrees]:[Provided that the Appellate Court shall not make any order under section 35A, in pursuance of any objection on which the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has omitted or refused to made such order].
After considering the pleadings of the parties, trial court framed the following issues :-
(i) is the suit as framed maintainable?
(ii) have the plaintiffs got cause of action?
(iii) have the plaintiffs’ right, title and interest in the suit land ?
(iv) have the defendants right, title, and interest in the suit land?
(v) is the suit barred by law of limitation ?
(vi) any other reliefs or reliefs to which the plaintiffs are entitled to ?
The Same was decreed on contest with cost and it is held and declared that plaintiffs have right title and
interest over the suit land and defendants possesses no right title.
Justice Pandey observed: "During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the respondent has admitted that the finding of the trial court regarding completion of adverse possession of respondents/ plaintiffs should not have been made and it has also been argued that the finding is not on merits but that is a superfluous finding, and notwithstanding that the case of the respondents is proved. 35. As against this, the main contention of the appellants is that trial court has not considered the documentary evidences of the appellants and that the finding of the learned trial court regarding adverse possession of plaintiffs/respondents is against the established law."
Justice Pandey examined whether the finding of the trial court regarding adverse possession is sustainable in the eye of the law?
The counsel for the appellants relied on a judgment of Supreme Court in Kishundeo Rout and Ors. vs. Govind Rao and Ors. in SLP Civil Number 22070 2025. In para 20 of the said judgment reads: “20. The plea of adverse possession is not always a legal pleas. Indeed, it is always based on facts which must be asserted and proved. A person who claims adverse possession must show on what date he came into possession, what was possession, whether the factum of his possession was known to the legal claimants and how long his possession continued. He must also the nature of his These are show whether his possession was open and undisturbed. all questions of fact and unless they are asserted and proved, a plea of adverse possession cannot be inferred from them. (Therefore, in normal cases an appellate Court will not allow the plea of adverse possession to be raised before it.) There is no doubt that in some cases, the plea will be allowed for the reason that in some form or the other allegation upon which it can be raised might have been made at the time and the facts necessary to prove the plea were brought before the court and proved.”
Justice Pandey recorded: "54. Admittedly, the disputed land has been sold by Ramjhari Devi to defendant No. 2 and defendant No. 3. The sale deeds have been executed by Ramjhari Devi; that much is the admitted position. But the case of the plaintiff is that as Ramjhari Devi is a stranger to the family of the plaintiff, she has got no right and title over the disputed land, and likewise, her transferee also did not get any title out of those transactions."
