Absence of Khewat Number in Plaint Schedule Does Not Vitiate Suit If Property Identity Is Well-Defined

The plaintiffs (respondents) filed a title suit seeking a declaration of right, title, and possession over 0.28 acres of land in plot no. 115, Khata no. 1, Mouza Bundu, Hazaribagh

They claimed ownership via a registered sale deed dated 17.08.1999 (Ext. 1) executed by Sita Sharan Pandey, whose chain of title traced back to the original landlords (Ex-zamindars) via sale deeds from 1952 and 1934

The defendants (appellants) contested the suit, claiming the land was recorded in the name of their ancestor, Sukhram Mahto, in the 1911-12 survey and that the vendor had no right to sell

Both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court (Civil Appeal No. 39 of 2024) decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, prompting this Second Appeal

1. Whether the description of the suit property was improper due to the absence of a Khewat number in the schedule, thereby vitiating the decree?

2. Whether the entry of the name Sukhram Mahto in the survey record of rights established title in favor of the defendants?

3. Whether the plaintiffs established a valid chain of title through the series of registered sale deeds starting from the Ex-landlord?

The Court applied the principles of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy (CNT) Act, 1908, specifically Section 118 regarding "Zirat" land, which defines such land as the privileged property of the landlord

The Court further relied on the evidentiary value of registered sale deeds under the Registration Act and the Indian Evidence Act, emphasizing that a clear chain of title and possession (supported by mutation and rent receipts) outweighs a survey entry that does not confer occupancy rights

The court also adhered to Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which restricts Second Appeals to "substantial questions of law" rather than pure questions of fact

The Court analyzed the documentary evidence and found that while the defendants relied on a Survey Khatiyan (Ext. L), that document explicitly marked the land as "Zirat Malik" belonging to the landlord (Ishwari Prasad Pandey), not the defendants' ancestor

The "Kabajwari" (possession) column was blank, negating the defendants' claim of long-standing occupancy

Conversely, the plaintiffs produced a valid, chronological chain of registered title deeds from 1934, 1952, and 1999, which were never challenged in a competent court

Regarding the identity of the land, the Court held that the absence of a Khewat number in the plaint schedule was not fatal because the boundary descriptions, Khata, and Plot numbers were well-defined and sufficient to identify the property

Since the vendor (Sita Sharan Pandey) was the descendant of the original "Zirat" owner, he possessed the legal right to transfer title

It affirmed the findings of the lower courts that the plaintiffs had established right, title, and interest through a valid chain of title and that the defendants' ancestor was never a recorded raiyat

The Court confirmed the decree for declaration of title and restoration/confirmation of possession in favor of the plaintiffs