Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 867 (JHR)

Nageshwar Ram v. Narayan Mahto

2011-09-13

N.N.TIWARI

body2011
Judgment NARENDRA NATH TIWARI Plaintiffs are the appellants/appellants. They had filed suit, seeking declaration of their right, title and possession over the land, appertaining to Khata no.3, Plot no.120, area 22 decimals; Plot no.121, area 3 decimals; and Plot no.165, area 3 decimals of village Bauraha, P.S. Meral, District Garhwa and for recovery of possession, if they are found dispossessed. Plaintiffs also prayed for a decree for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' title and possession. 2. Plaintiffs' case was that the suit land was recorded in the name of Uddi Dusadh and Basu Dusadh in cadastral survey record of rights. Uddi Dusadh died leaving behind his sonPrasad Dusadh. There was a partition between Prasad Dusadh and Basu Dusadh and the suit land was partitioned in equal share. Prasad Dusadh died leaving behind his daughterPunia, who was born out of the wedlock of first wifeSubhagia Devi. Prasad Dusadh was remarried to Sanichari Dusadhin after the death of Subhagia Devi. After the death of Prasad Dusadh, Sanichari Dusadhin left the village and remarried with to Beni Dusadh. Punia remained the only successor of Prasad Dusadh. She has been in physical cultivating possession of the suit land. The defendants have absolutely no right, title and possession over the suit land. However, the defendants tried to dispossess the plaintiffs therefrom by use of force. The dispute led to a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. In the said proceeding, for the first time, the defendants claimed that they have got the suit land in exchange. The said land was given by Basu Dusadh and Sanichari Dusadhin to Begani Mahatmain in lieu of 5 Kathas land of Begani Mahtoin Plot no.30 given to them. Subsequently, Begani Mahatowain settled the said land in exchange, to Indrajit Mahto and Laichu Mahto in the year 1948. The said settlement was followed by rent receipts. The settleesIndrajit Mahto and Laichu Mahto sold the said land to one BipatMahto by virture of registered Sale Deed no.3171 dated 8th June, 1976. The said purchaser got his name mutated in revenue record. The plaintiffs claimed that the transactions were illegal, invalid and inoperative. The defendants have not acquired any right title by the said transaction. The plaintiffs have valid right, title and possession and are entitled to the reliefs prayed for. 3. The defendants contested the suit by filing written statement. The said purchaser got his name mutated in revenue record. The plaintiffs claimed that the transactions were illegal, invalid and inoperative. The defendants have not acquired any right title by the said transaction. The plaintiffs have valid right, title and possession and are entitled to the reliefs prayed for. 3. The defendants contested the suit by filing written statement. It was, inter alia, stated that though Punia was the only daughter of Prasadh Dusadh, it is false to state that Subhagia was the first wife of Prasad Dusadh and the mother of Punia and Sanichari was the second wife of Prasad Dusadh. As a matter of fact, Sanichari Dusadhin was the only wife of Prasad Dusadh and she was mother of Punia. Prasad Dusadh died in 1940 and Sanichari Dusadhin never remarried nor left the family of Prasad Dusadh. After the death of Prasad Dusadh, Sanichari Dusadhin succeeded him and inherited his property. She exchanged the suit land for the land of the then landlord Begani Mahatmain and in lieu of the suit land got another land. The father of the defendants is the subsequent bona fide purchaser. He acquired valid right, title by virtue of the sale deed. His name was mutated by the revenue authority. Father of the defendants, thereafter, constructed a residential house and a Pucca well over the suit land and continued in peaceful possession thereof till his death. After the death of their father, Defendant nos.1 to 5 inherited the property and have been in peaceful physical possession thereof. The plaintiffs have fabricated a story and have instituted a frivolous suit. The same is liable to be dismissed. 4. Learned Trial Court, on the basis of the said pleadings, framed several issues. 5. Both the parties led their evidences. 6. Learned Trial Court after due discussion and consideration of facts and evidences decided almost all issues against the plaintiffs and dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs, thereafter, preferred appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court in the court of learned District Judge, Garhwa, being T. A. no.36 of 2003. The said appeal was came to be heard and decided by the 1st Additional District Judge, Garhwa. Learned Lower Appellate Court, on due scrutiny of the pleadings of the parties, evidences and material on record, concurred with the findings of the facts arrived at by learned Trial Court and dismissed the appeal. 7. The said appeal was came to be heard and decided by the 1st Additional District Judge, Garhwa. Learned Lower Appellate Court, on due scrutiny of the pleadings of the parties, evidences and material on record, concurred with the findings of the facts arrived at by learned Trial Court and dismissed the appeal. 7. The plaintiffs/appellants have assailed the impugned judgment and decree mainly on the ground that the learned courts below have not properly considered the very illegality of the exchange and have failed to appreciate that the plaintiffs are the members of Scheduled Caste and exchange of their land without prior sanction of the Deputy Commissioner is illegal and in violation of Section 46 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act. 8. Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that though the plaintiffs had made out a case that the exchange as well as the sale deed are against the provisions of law, they failed to establish their case. Learned courts below have found that in exchange, the predecessorininterest of the plaintiffs had got 5 Kathas of another land and they are not in possession of the said land. The suit has been filed after a long time and after lapse of the prescribed period of limitation. The defendants are the bona fide purchasers and they have been in peaceful possession of the suit land. They have also constructed their residential house and a Pucca well. Two courts of facts have recorded concurrent findings and there is no illegality in the judgments and decrees of the courts below. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgments of the learned courts below. 10. Learned Trial Court framed issues on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and decided the same after discussing the facts and evidences in detail and recorded its finding on the basis thereof. Learned Lower Appellate Court has also independently appraised the pleadings of the parties and evidences adduced by them and has recorded its finding, concurring with the findings of the learned Trial Court. 11. I find no infirmity or illegality in the judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court, giving rise to any substantial question of law. 12. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.