Case Background
The dispute concerns land in Mouza Madhopara, Purnea, recorded as Municipal Survey (MS) Khata No. 144, MS Plot No. 788 (area 5.40 ares) and MS Plot No. 473 (area 14.10 ares), total 19.50 ares. The boundaries include lands of neighbours on the north and west, a municipal road on the south and a “dhar” on the east.
The plaintiffs’ case was that three bighas of land under Cadastral Survey (CS) Khata No. 51 (part), Plot Nos. 811, 813 and 819 at Madhopara were settled in favour of their predecessor, Bhauli Das, by the khewatdar Maulvi Mohammad Hanif in 1953. They claimed that after settlement they came into possession, paid rent to the landlord, and after the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 came into force, their names were mutated, jamabandi was opened and rent receipts were issued in their favour.
According to the plaintiffs, they built their residential house on part of the land and were given a municipal holding number (Holding No. 27 of Ward No. 1/19, Mohalla Gwala Toli). They used the remaining land for cultivation, “bari-jhari” and keeping cattle. During a later municipal survey, the authorities issued a parcha in their names showing that MS Plot No. 473 was carved out of CS Plot No. 819 (part) and MS Plot Nos. 474(ka) and 474(kha) were carved out of CS Plot Nos. 811, 813 and 819 (part), all recorded in the plaintiffs’ names.
The dispute arose when the defendants, who lived in the same area, filed an objection case (No. 515/646 of 1983, Ward No. 1, Purnea Municipality) against the State of Bihar. That objection concerned MS Plot Nos. 644 and 472, not the plaintiffs’ plots 473 and 474(ka)/(kha), and the plaintiffs were not made parties. The plaintiffs alleged that, in collusion with the defendants, the municipal survey amin submitted a wrong and collusive report, on the basis of which the Assistant Settlement Officer on 25.07.1984 ordered that MS Plot No. 473 (14 ares 10 decimals) and part of MS Plot No. 474 (5 ares 40 decimals) be recorded in the defendants’ names. The entry was directed to be made as “Deebakar Das etc., Dhokal Bholi Das”.
The plaintiffs claimed that this order was without jurisdiction and illegal. They alleged threats of dispossession from the defendants. They treated 25.07.1984 (the date of the survey order), 30.01.1990 (when the khatiyan was finally published) and 05.02.1990 (the last alleged threat) as the main dates giving rise to their cause of action.
They therefore filed Title Suit No. 35 of 1990 before the Munsif, Sadar, Purnea, seeking declaration of their title and confirmation of possession over the suit land, and a declaration that the entry of the defendants’ names in the municipal records was wrong.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The defendants in their written statement denied that the plaintiffs’ predecessor had acquired the suit land by settlement. They admitted filing Objection Case No. 515/646 of 1983 but said that the land in question actually belonged to their family.
The defendants’ specific case was that their father, Sukhdev Das, had purchased several pieces of land in Mouza Madhopara by a registered sale deed dated 24.01.1973 from Bibi Akhtari and other heirs of late Md. Hanif. The sale covered parts of Khata Nos. 99, 97, 98, 100 and 34, including CS Plot Nos. 815, 819, 821, 817, 820 and 814, totalling 1 bigha 8 kathas. They claimed that their father had been in possession of this land, growing crops and planting bamboos.
After their father’s death in 1976, the defendants said they continued in possession with the help of their grandfather. They asserted that the suit lands formed part of their purchased land, and that the municipal survey had wrongly recorded the land in the plaintiffs’ names. They also pleaded adverse possession, stating that they had been in open and hostile possession for more than 12 years to the knowledge of the plaintiffs.
The trial court considered the oral and documentary evidence from both sides. It decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs, holding that they had proved their title and possession over the suit land.
The defendants then filed Title Appeal No. 52 of 1992 (Tr. No. 3 of 1996) before the 4th Additional District Judge, Purnea. The lower appellate court reversed the trial court’s decree by judgment dated 09/12.10.1999. It held that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that their father acquired the suit land by settlement in 1953. It also held that there was confusion in the description of the suit land: according to the plaintiffs’ case, MS Plot Nos. 473, 474(ka) and 474(kha) were carved out of CS Plot No. 819, but in the plaint schedule the suit land was described as MS Plot Nos. 788 and 473. On this basis, the appellate court termed the description vague and dismissed the suit, although it accepted that the plaintiffs were in possession of the land as per the municipal survey record (Ext. 4).
In the second appeal before the Patna High Court, several substantial questions of law were framed, mainly about whether the first appellate court was justified in refusing to admit the municipal survey parcha as evidence, whether it could dismiss the suit despite clear findings of plaintiffs’ possession, and whether it could do so even after holding that the defendants had failed to prove their own right and title.
On behalf of the appellants (plaintiffs), it was argued that the lower appellate court wrongly refused to mark the municipal survey parcha as an exhibit. That document, they said, would connect the present MS plots with the old CS plots and show that the entry of the defendants’ names in the municipal survey khatiyan was wrong. They stressed that both courts had found the plaintiffs in possession, and that possessory title, supported by rent receipts, was sufficient against all except the lawful owner.
The appellants relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Somnath Burman v. Dr. S.P. Raju, (1969) 3 SCC 129, to say that possession can itself be strong evidence of ownership as against a rival claimant. They also pointed out that entries in record-of-rights do not themselves create or extinguish title, and are only rebuttable pieces of evidence. They highlighted portions of the cross-examination of DW-7 (a defendant), where he admitted seeing the residential house of Bholi Das standing on about three bighas, with crops on the land, effectively acknowledging the plaintiffs’ possession.
The respondents, supporting the lower appellate court, argued that there was no documentary proof of the alleged 1953 settlement. The zamindari receipts produced by the plaintiffs (Exts. 1, 1A, 1B and 1C) were for the years 1950–1952, which were before the claimed settlement, and no zamindari return had been filed. They also stressed the differing descriptions of the land in the plaint and schedule.
The respondents further argued that their own registered sale deed (Ext. A) dated 24.01.1973, executed in favour of Sukhdev Das, carried a legal presumption of valid execution. Since the plaintiffs had not sought to set aside or challenge this registered deed, the defendants’ title could not be lightly disturbed. For this principle, they relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Jamila Begum (Dead) through LRs v. Shami Mohd (Dead) through LRs, AIR 2019 SC 72. They also cited Narshing Mishra v. Rajendra Mishra, 2009(2) PLJR 1028, to say that entries in survey khatiyan are not proof of title.
Justice Khatim Reza, deciding the second appeal, closely examined Ext. 4, the municipal survey khatiyan. He noted that Plot Nos. 474/788, area 5.40 ares, and Plot No. 473, area 14.70 ares, were both recorded in the possession column in the name of “Bhauli Das, son of Rameshwar Das”. On this basis, the High Court found that there was no real conflict in the description of the suit land: MS Plot 474/788 and MS Plot 473 together matched the plaintiffs’ case.
The Court also observed that the defendants themselves had admitted filing Objection Case No. 515/646 of 1983 only with respect to MS Plot Nos. 644 and 472, and had never claimed MS Plot Nos. 473 and 474(ka)/(kha) in that objection. Since these plots were not in dispute in that proceeding, the plaintiffs were not made parties. There was, therefore, no basis for the Assistant Settlement Officer to direct entry of the defendants’ names over the plaintiffs’ plots.
The High Court accepted that there was no dispute regarding CS Plot Nos. 811, 813 and 819 of Khata No. 51 (part), which formed the three bighas settled in favour of the original plaintiff by the ex-landlord. Rent receipts issued by the ex-landlord for the years 1360–1362 fasli (1953–1955), for arrears of 1357–1359 fasli, and later rent receipts by the State of Bihar for the same khata (Kayami Khata) supported this settlement. Jamabandi No. 29 had been created in favour of Bhauli Das in 1958, and both the trial court and the lower appellate court had concurrently found that the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit land.
Referring to Rame Gowde (dead) by LR v. M. Varadappa Naidu (dead) by LR, (2004) 1 SCC 769, the High Court emphasised that under Indian law, a person in peaceful possession is entitled to protect that possession and may even use reasonable force against a trespasser. The Court held that the plaintiffs had long-standing, “settled” possession.
The High Court also found that the lower appellate court erred in saying there was no evidence showing that the MS plots were carved out of CS Plot Nos. 811, 813 and 819. This could have been clarified through the municipal survey parcha, which was already on record but not marked as an exhibit. The appellate court, being the final court of facts, ought to have admitted this important document to determine the true connection between old and new plot numbers.
On the legal effect of settlement and possession, the High Court relied on the Full Bench decision in Mosst. Ugni and another v. Chowa Mahto and others, AIR 1968 Pat 302, which held that actual possession plus acceptance of rent by the ex-landlord creates raiyati interest in favour of the settlee. The Court noted that after vesting of zamindari, jamabandi had been opened in favour of the plaintiffs, confirming their raiyati status and title.
The Court further cited AIR 1974 Pat 164 (FB) (Nand Kumar Rai and others v. State) and 1991(1) PLJR 633 (Reyasat Ali Khan and another v. Bhagalpur Municipality) to reiterate that revisional or municipal survey entries neither create nor extinguish title. They mainly reflect physical possession and are not documents of title.
Taking all this together, the High Court concluded that the plaintiffs had proved both their title and possession over the suit land. There was no evidence that the defendants had purchased the same land from their vendor. The presumption of continuity of possession before and after zamindari vesting, along with the principle that possession follows title, worked in favour of the plaintiffs.
Accordingly, the Patna High Court held that the lower appellate court had erred in dismissing the suit. It declared the municipal survey khatiyan entry in favour of the defendants to be wrong and incorrect, set aside the appellate judgment dated 12.10.1999 in Title Appeal No. 52/1992 (Tr. No. 3/1996), and restored and affirmed the trial court’s decree dated 15.09.1992 in Title Suit No. 35/1990. The second appeal was allowed, and all substantial questions of law were answered in favour of the appellants.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is significant for small landholders and urban villagers in Bihar whose lands are affected by municipal survey operations. It shows that survey entries, even when made by official authorities, cannot override long, settled possession backed by rent receipts and jamabandi.
The Patna High Court has clarified that when an ex-landlord settles land and accepts rent, raiyati interest is created in favour of the settlee. After zamindari abolition, if jamabandi is opened and possession continues, courts will protect that title even if a later survey wrongly records someone else’s name.
The decision also stresses that if objection proceedings are held behind someone’s back for different plots, orders passed there cannot legally disturb their land. People facing similar threats of dispossession due to wrong survey entries can rely on this reasoning to challenge such entries and seek confirmation of their title and possession.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Could the first appellate court dismiss the plaintiffs’ suit on the ground of vague description and lack of proof of title, despite findings of their possession and available survey and rent record evidence?
Answer: No. The Patna High Court held that the description of the land was not conflicting once Ext. 4 was properly read, that the plaintiffs had proved raiyati settlement, jamabandi and long possession, and that the appellate court erred in rejecting the survey parcha and dismissing the suit. - Issue: What is the effect of municipal survey entries on title where there is earlier settlement, rent receipts and jamabandi in favour of another person?
Answer: Municipal survey entries neither create nor extinguish title and mainly reflect possession. Where title and possession are otherwise proved, a wrong survey entry in someone else’s name can be declared incorrect. - Issue: Were the plaintiffs entitled to declaration of their title and confirmation of possession over the suit property despite the defendants’ registered sale deed and plea of adverse possession?
Answer: Yes. The Court held that the plaintiffs had established raiyati title and settled possession, and there was no proof that the defendants’ sale deed covered the same land. The defendants’ case of adverse possession also failed.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Somnath Burman v. Dr. S.P. Raju and another, (1969) 3 SCC 129
- Rame Gowde (dead) by LR v. M. Varadappa Naidu (dead) LR and others, (2004) 1 SCC 769
- Mosst. Ugni and another v. Chowa Mahto and others, AIR 1968 Pat 302 (Full Bench)
- Nand Kumar Rai and others v. State, AIR 1974 Pat 164 (Full Bench)
- Reyasat Ali Khan and another v. Bhagalpur Municipality, 1991(1) PLJR 633
- Jamila Begum (Dead) through LRs v. Shami Mohd (Dead) through LRs, AIR 2019 SC 72
- Narshing Mishra v. Rajendra Mishra, 2009(2) PLJR 1028
Case Details
Case Number: Second Appeal No. 535 of 1999
Case Title: Ram Prasad Das and others v. Deebakar Das and others
Citation: 2024(1) PLJR 487
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Khatim Reza
Date of Judgment: 04.01.2024
Advocates:
For the appellants: Mr. Raghib Ahsan, Senior Advocate with Md. Shahab Khalil, Advocate
For the respondents: Mr. Abbas Haider, Advocate and Mr. Wasi Mohammad, Advocate
Nature of the Case: Second appeal in a title (civil) suit seeking declaration of title and confirmation of possession over landed property, and correction of municipal survey entries.
Link to the Judgment: Click here to read the full Patna High Court judgment
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
