Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 278 (PAT)

Aghanu Khatway v. Srimati Devi

2002-02-27

R.M.PRASAD

body2002
Judgment R.M.Prasad, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of affirmance passed in Title Appeal No. 49/95 by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Darbhanga. 2. The defendants are the appellants. Plaintiff-respondents filed suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession over the suit property mentioned in Schedule. II and in alternative if they are found dispossessed from the suit land a decree for recovery of possession for the same be passed and mesne profit be awarded since the date of illegal dispossession and also for restraining the defendant-appellants from interfering with the possession. 3. The C.S. land stood in the name of Khubi Suri and Gokul Suri. The case of the plaintiffs is that on 23-2-1921 Khubi sold it to Makhu and on 16-5-1938 Makhu sold it to father/grand-father of the plaintiffs vide Exhibits-1 & 1/A. According to the defendants case Khubi and Gokul sold the suit land to one Kanchan on 2-9-1914 and Kanchan sold to the ancestors of the defendants, namely, Jhari Khatway on 5-7-1921 and by virtue of above the defendants and the plaintiffs claimed their respective title over the suit land. The parties led evidence and the trial Court on detailed consideration of the evidence decreed the suit and the lower appellate Court also has affirmed it. 4. According to the learned Counsel for the appellants, Mr. Vishwanath Pd. Singh, both the Courts-below have decreed the suit mainly relying upon Exhibit-14, which is certified copy of the land record of Zamindari kept in Kames war Religious Trust, Darbhanga, which was accepted and marked with objection. According to the learned Counsel for the appellants this document, the original of which has not been produced, is manufactured and fabricated document. It is also contended that this document is beyond their pleadings and in any view of the matter Exhibit-14 which is inadmissible document has certainly prejudiced the case of the defendants/appellants on account of its consideration by the Courts-below and, thus, the impugned judgment are fit to be set aside on this ground alone. It is also contended that this document is beyond their pleadings and in any view of the matter Exhibit-14 which is inadmissible document has certainly prejudiced the case of the defendants/appellants on account of its consideration by the Courts-below and, thus, the impugned judgment are fit to be set aside on this ground alone. Learned Counsel for the appellants has also contended that admittedly the sale-deeds in favour of the defendant-appellants are prior in time than that of the plaintiff-respondents and, thus, ihe Courts-below were not justified in declaring the plaintiffs title and possession over the suit land by virtue of sale-deeds Exhibit-1 & I/A executed later, more so by ignoring the rent-receipts issued by the State of Bihar in favour of the defendant-appellants. On the other hand, Mr. Sinha, learned Counsel for the plaintiff-respondents has contended that the Courts-below have declared the title of the plaintiffs on detailed consideration of the entire evidence independent of Exhibit-14 also. In this regard, he referred to paragraph 10 of the judgment of the lower appellate Court. 5. I find substance in the submission of the learned Counsel for the plaintiff-respondents. The lower appellate Court in paragraph 10 of the impugned judgment has considered every aspect and evidence brought on record by the learned Counsel. for the parties and not that Exhibit-14 has been mainly relied upon to declare the title of the plaintiffs. The lower appellate Court on consideration of evidence has found that the defendant-appellants have not brought anything on record to show that their name with regard to the suit land is mutated or is entered in the Sarista of the landlord or in the Sarista of the State. He has also considered the rent receipts issued by the ex-landlord which has been found to be not for the plot in question and also Exhibit-A/3 to A/21 with regard to jamabandi Nos. 944 and 1182, but the plot No. 852 in question is not included in the said jamabandi. Thus, this Court finds that the question regarding plaintiffs title and possession over the suit land stands concluded by the concurrent findings of fact of the two Courts-below and does not warrant any interference much less when no substantial question of law is involved. 6. The Second appeal is, thus, dismissed in limine.