Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2532 (JHR)

Budhan Besara v. Shyam Pandit

2018-11-22

RAJESH KUMAR

body2018
ORDER : Heard the learned counsel for the appellants. 2. The appellants are original defendants. 3. The suit being Title Suit No. 27 of 1997 has been instituted by the plaintiffs for the following reliefs: “(i) For a decree of declaration of right, title, interest & possession of the plaintiffs over the suit properties. (ii) For temporary & permanent injunction restraining the defendants first party from interesting with the possession of plaintiff. (iii) For cost of the suit. (iv) For any other receipt or reliefs which the court may deem fit & necessary. Schedule In Mouza Bazwa Tola Topla Police State Jasidih settled by Pradhan vide Patta No. 87828 dt. 25.09. 19955 and Patta No. 87818 dated 25th Aswin 1359 B.S. Plot No. Class of lands Area(A.D.) 23 Parti Kadim 1.03 34 34 20 0.63 4. The basis of claim as set out in the plaint by the plaintiffs that the suit land has been recorded in the last Gantzer’s settlement as Parti Kadim and this land can be settled by Pradhan and accordingly the predecessor of the plaintiff has approached the pradhan and in response of his application, the said land has been settled in favour of the predecessor of the plaintiffs and on that basis, they came into the possession of the suit land and since then, they continued in possession. 5. The defendants have contested the suit and have claimed that the suit land has been settled in favour of his father by the same pradhan. Further a proceeding under Section 144 of the Cr. P. C. has already been initiated for the same land. 6. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the Trial Court: (I) Whether the suit as framed is maintainable? (II) Whether the suit property has been validly settled by the pradhan vide patta no. 87828 and 87818 to the plaintiffs? (III) Whether except the plaintiff’s defendants have got any right, title, interest over the suit property? (IV) Whether the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land from the very settlement by the pradhan of the village and the pradhan was competent to settle the suit property to the plaintiffs? (V) Whether valid cause of action has arisen for filing the present suit? (IV) Whether the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land from the very settlement by the pradhan of the village and the pradhan was competent to settle the suit property to the plaintiffs? (V) Whether valid cause of action has arisen for filing the present suit? (VI) Whether the land described in the schedule of the plaint has validly been settled in favour of Hopna Besra, the deceased father of the defendant Nos. 1 & 2 by the pradhan of the village vide patta No. 33057 dt. 01.11.1949? (VII) Whether the land described in the schedule of the plaint has been in the absolute agricultural possession of the defendant No. 1 & 2?” 7. Specific finding has been recorded that the settlement made in favour of the predecessor of the plaintiffs by Pradhan vide Patta Nos. 87828 and 87818 is valid and on that basis the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land. The claim of the defendants that the land has been settled by the Pradhan of the village vide Patta No. 33057 dated 01.11.1949 in favour of his father has been negated. In view of the above findings, the suit has been decreed in favour of the plaintiffs. 8. Being aggrieved, the defendants have preferred Title Appeal No. 10 of 2009. The Appellate Court has considered the entire evidences and formulated two points for consideration, which are as follows: “After having considered the arguments advanced before me by the learned lawyers appearing on behalf of both the sides, the main question arises for consideration and adjudication by this Court is that:- (I) Whether the land described in the schedule of the plaint has validly been settled in favour of Hopna Besra, the deceased father of appellants/defendants Nos. 1 & 2 by the pradhan of the village vide patta No. 33057 dt. 01.11.1949 or whether the suit property has been validly settled by the pradhan vide patta Nos. 87828 and 87818 in favour of the rrespondents/plaintiffs? (II) Whether the appellants/defendants have got any right, title, interest over the suit property or not ?” 9. After considering the evidences, the First Appellate Court has approved the findings recorded by the Trial Court and accordingly, the decree has been confirmed. 10. 87828 and 87818 in favour of the rrespondents/plaintiffs? (II) Whether the appellants/defendants have got any right, title, interest over the suit property or not ?” 9. After considering the evidences, the First Appellate Court has approved the findings recorded by the Trial Court and accordingly, the decree has been confirmed. 10. Thus, there are concurrent findings of fact by both the Courts below by holding that the suit land has been settled in favour of the predecessor of plaintiffs vide patta Nos. 87828 and 87818 is legal and valid and on that basis, the plaintiff has acquired title and possession over the suit land and so called settlement in favour of Hopna Besra, the deceased father of appellants/defendants Nos. 1 & 2 by the pradhan of the village vide patta No. 33057 dt. 01.11.1949 has been negated. 11. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds that no substantial question of law involved in the present appeal and accordingly, the same is, hereby, dismissed.