Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 650 (PAT)

Ramkali Devi And Others v. Ram Naresh Prasad

2001-07-27

SOMESHWAR NATH PATHAK

body2001
Judgment Someshwar Nath Patak, J. 1. This second appeal was directed against the judgment and decree passed by Sri Madan Mohan Choudhary, Sub ordinate Judge-I, Aurangabad in Title Appeal No. 32/78/30/84, The appellants before this Court were the defendants in title suit No. 86 of 1969 and the suit was filed by the respondents before this Court. The suit was dismissed and then, on appeal by the plaintiff-respondents, the appellate Court decreed the suit. Hence, this appeal by the defendants of the suit who were the respondents before the first appellate Court. 2. Before I refer to the substantial question of law framed for decision of this appeal, it would be worthwhile to refer to certain relevant facts pleaded by the plaintiff-respondents as well as by the defendant-appellants before this Court. Plot Nos. 219 and 220 were the subject-matter of the suit and it was pleaded by the plaintiff-respondents that one Pachkali Kuer was the recorded tenure-holder of the aforesaid plots and one Basudeo Lal, Mathura Prasad and Rajendra Prasad were the grandson from the daughters side of this Pachkali Kuer. On the death of Pachkali Kuer, her three Natis inherited her properties. Rajendra Prasad had separated from other brothers but Basudeo Lal and Mathura Prasad remained joint. Basudeo Lal had a confident in one Mudrika Prasad who used to pay rent on behalf of Basudeo Lal. This Mudrika Prasad fraudulently obtained receipt for 57 decimals of plot No. 219 and 99 decimals of plot No. 220. Plaintiff No. 2 was father of plaintiff No. 1 and their case was that they had inherited the property from Pachkali Kuer. Basudeo Lal had gifted 1.25 decimals of plot No. 219 in favour of plaintiff No. 1 and the remaining area of this plot and plot No. 220 were all inherited by both the plaintiffs on the death of Basudeo Lal. The plaintiff No. 2 was Madhura Prasad. However, the defendant-appellants were claiming the said land, 7 decimals of plot No. 219 and entire area of plot No. 220 on the basis of settlement from Mathura Prasad and Basudeo Lal in the year 1950 Fasli (corresponding to year 1943). 3. The trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that after vesting of the intermediary interest in the State of Bihar they obtained settlement and their names were entered in Register-ll. 3. The trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that after vesting of the intermediary interest in the State of Bihar they obtained settlement and their names were entered in Register-ll. So after vesting of the intermediary interest, title of the plaintiffs was extinguished. The trial Court, however, also held, on the basis of evidence adduced on behalf of defendant-appellants that they had also failed to prove that they were in possession of the suit land. The trial Court, however, held further that since the plaintiffs had failed to prove their title, they were not entitled to confirmation of their possession or for recovery of their possession. However, the first appellate Court decreed the suit and the operative part of the judgment of the appellate Court is: It is also declared that the plaintiffs have valid right, title and interest in the suit land, i.e. 57 decimals of plot No. 219 and 99 decimals of plot No. 220 and they are in possession over the same. It is also declared that the rent receipts in respect of suit land in favour of Mudrika Prasad is not binding on the plaintiffs. 4. The substantial questions of law, formulated for the decision of this appeal were to the following effect: (i) In view of the fact that the Court below has committed an error of record in ignoring the return filed by Mathura Prasad under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, whether the finding of the Court below disbelieving the settlement of the land in question by Mathura and Basudeo in favour of Mudrika Prasad could have been disbelieved? (ii) Whether, in view of the fact that the rent receipts do not bear plot numbers, the Court below could hold that they do not relate the land in question ? 5. However, so far as these two substantial questions formulated by this Court are concerned, I am of the opinion that none of these two questions was related to the legal principles of law applicable to the facts of the case. Both the lower Courts have held that the alleged story of settlement propounded by defendant-appellants was not proved by the evidence on the record. So far as the receipts in favour of defendants were concerned, none of the lower Courts placed on the same. Both the lower Courts have held that the alleged story of settlement propounded by defendant-appellants was not proved by the evidence on the record. So far as the receipts in favour of defendants were concerned, none of the lower Courts placed on the same. So there was no question of these facts being described as questions of law. However, during the course of argument, another question of law was formulated for decision of this appeal by order dated 6th July, 2000 which is to the following effect: Whether after vesting of Jamindari Estate, the title of the Ex-1 and land over his bakast land and his right to possess the same, shall vest in the State of Bihar, unless he obtains settlement in his favour under the Land Reforms Act ? This question of law arose because the trial Court held that after the vesting of intermediary interest, the plaintiff-respondents were not entitled to hold even the Bakast land and, therefore, their title had become extinct Unless they obtained settlement u/s. 4 of the Land Reforms Act. That means, unless they have got their name entered in the Register-ll of the State of Bihar. Of course, after vesting of Intermediary interest, all lands including Bakast land shall vest in the State of Bihar. sec. 4 of the Land Reforms Act has provided that Bakast land held by any Ex-landlord or intermediary may be settled with them by the State of Bihar on an application in this connection. But, the question is whether the plaintiff-respondents were found to be in possession over the suit lands, even though their title had been extinguished on account of vesting of entire intermediary interest, in the State of Bihar. The plaintiff-respondents did not see any declaration of their title in the suit land. They simply sought confirmation of their possession or, in the alternative, recovery of possession and declaration that the receipts in favour of defendants were not valid nor they were binding upon the plaintiffs. Both the lower Courts held that the defendants were not found in possession nor they had been able to prove their case of oral settlement, Admittedly from the heirs of Pachkali Kuer who were Mathura Prasad and Basudeo Lal. Both the lower Courts held that the defendants were not found in possession nor they had been able to prove their case of oral settlement, Admittedly from the heirs of Pachkali Kuer who were Mathura Prasad and Basudeo Lal. The plaintiff-respondents were unsuited by the trial Court simply on the ground that they had failed to get their names entered in Register-ll after vesting of the intermediary interest in the State of Bihar. But when the plaintiffs did not seek any relief regarding the declaration of title, although they had sought declaration regarding want of title, in favour of defendants, I am of the opinion that the trial Court has no business to hold that the plaintiffs had no title over the suit land. They having failed to secure settlement u/s. 4 of the Land Reforms Act. The Court had no business to introduce a third case. All that the plaintiffs, therefore, wanted from the trial Court was that they be held was in possession of the disputed lands, they being heirs of the recorded tenure-holders. The appellate Court has held, on the basis of entire evidence on the record, that the plaintiff-respondents were in possession of the disputed land and so the same relief has been granted to them. The fact of possession is a question of fact and the appellate Courts finding in this connection is final. This question cannot be reopened or reagitated in the second appeal. Whether the plaintiffs obtained settlement from the State of Bihar under the Land Reforms Act is beside the point and is beyond the scope of the suit. This settlement can be obtained at any time after the vesting and not necessarily immediately after the vesting. So I am of the opinion that this substantial question of law. formulated by subsequent order of this Court will also not impede for the grant of relief in favour of plaintiff-respondents as afforded by the first appellate Court. 6 In the result, this appeal is dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs.