MANGLA URAON Vs. HAZARI URAON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The substantial question of law involved, formulated and to be answered in this second appeal preferred by the appellants/legal representatives of the plaintiff is as under:­

(2.) The suit property mentioned in Schedule 'A' attached with the plaint is situated at village Kerta, Tahsil Pratappur bearing khasra Nos.907 and 908 area 1.13 and 1.69 and was originally held by Sukhna as recorded in Ex.P­2. He had two sons namely Gangu and Mangla. Mangla was original plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 3 are sons of Gangu. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit land is self­acquired property of his father and grandfather of defendants No.1 to 3 namely Sukhna. It is case of the plaintiff that on account of mistake committed by the revenue officials during survey settlement, name of Jitu was earlier recorded, which was got corrected pursuant to the judgment and decree of the trial Court in Civil Suit No.20A/97, dated 20.7.58 filed by his father Sukhna. It is further case of the plaintiff that his father's name was recorded in revenue records. It is also case of the plaintiff that after death of Sukhna, the plaintiff and his brother Gangu both remained in joint possession over the suit property, but name of Gangu and thereafter defendants NO.1 to 3 were recorded in revenue records. When the defendants tried to dispossess the plaintiff revenue case was initiated and thereafter the defendants moved an application for recovery of possession over the suit land before the revenue authorities, in which the plaintiff was noticed, leading to filing of the suit for declaration of title, partition and permanent injunction on 7.1.95 pleading inter­alia that the property being father's ancestral property he is entitled for 1/2 share in the suit property, for which decree of partition be granted in his favour and consequent to, decree of permanent injunction.

(3.) Resisting the suit, the defendants filed their written statement stating inter­alia that the plaintiff had already been given land in family arrangement and he has left the house and was living separately. The defendants' name have been recorded in revenue records and the plaintiff is not having right, title and interest over the suit property and as such, the suit is liable to be dismissed.