the Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi dismissed Second Appeal No. 136 of 2026 filed by Ram Kishun Mahto and Panchmi Devi, thereby upholding the concurrent findings of the trial court and the first appellate court in a long-standing title dispute over land in Village Datma, Ranchi.
Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi delivered the judgment, holding that no substantial question of law arose for interference under Section 100 CPC.
Facts of the Case
The dispute relates to 10 decimals of land under Plot No. 64, Khata No. 56, Mauza Datma. The plaintiff (Md. Salim Khan) claimed the land as part of ancestral property acquired by his grandfather Sheikh Ramjan and others through a registered sale deed dated 14.11.1945 (Deed No. 5607). After family partition, the share devolved upon the plaintiff’s family, who remained in possession.
The defendants (appellants) claimed possession based on a 1971 sale deed executed in favour of their predecessor (Nanku Mahto) and a subsequent house-site allotment under Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana in 2017.
The plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 576 of 2023 (originally T.S. No. 42 of 2018) seeking declaration of the 1945 sale deed and recovery of possession. The suit was decreed ex-parte on 24.07.2023. The defendants’ first appeal was dismissed on 23.03.2026. Hence, the second appeal.
Key Issues Before the High Court
- Whether proper service of summons was effected on the defendants, justifying the ex-parte proceeding.
- Whether the suit land (Plot No. 64) was distinct from the land claimed by the defendants (allegedly Plot No. 94).
- Whether any substantial question of law arose warranting admission of the second appeal.
Appellants’ Contentions
Mr. Ayush Aditya, counsel for the appellants, argued that:
- The defendants were not properly served with summons.
- The ex-parte decree was illegal and required remand.
- There was confusion regarding plot numbers, and the defendants had valid title and possession under the 1971 sale deed and government allotment.
High Court’s Decision
The Court meticulously examined the record and held:
- Proper Service of Notice: Summons were duly served. Ram Kishun Mahto personally received summons, and his wife Panchmi Devi was served and informed about the suit. The defendants had knowledge but chose not to appear.
- No Sufficient Cause: The appellants failed to show sufficient cause under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte decree. Reliance was placed on Parimal v. Veena (2011) 3 SCC 545.
- Distinct Plots: The suit concerned 10 decimals in Plot No. 64, while the defendants’ documents related to Plot No. 94. No steps were taken by the appellants to prove their claim or lead additional evidence before the first appellate court.
- Concurrent Findings: Both lower courts correctly appreciated the evidence. The 1945 sale deed and subsequent possession by the plaintiff’s family were duly proved.
The Court observed that a second appeal can be admitted only on a substantial question of law. No such question arose, as the findings were based on appreciation of facts and evidence. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
This judgment reaffirms the limited scope of interference in second appeals under Section 100 CPC. It also highlights the importance of diligent participation in trial proceedings and proper documentation of title claims, especially where government schemes like PM Awas Yojana are involved.
Case Details
Case Title: Ram Kishun Mahto & Anr. v. Md. Salim Khan & Ors.
Case No.: Second Appeal No. 136 of 2026
Court: Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Date of Judgment: 11th June 2026
Citation: 2026 JHHC 17016
Click HERE for full Judgment.
Lawcutor 