SHRIRAM Vs. CHANDAN SAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is against the judgment and decree dated 16.02.2015 passed in Civil Appeal No.4-A/2014 by the First Additional District Judge, Jashpur Nagar, District Jashpur whereby the judgment and decree passed on 04.02.2013 in Civil Suit No.10-A/2010 has been affirmed.

(2.) The suit was filed by plaintiff Dhobi Sai (since deceased) on the ground that late Prem Sai was given land by Sanman Singh who was Diwan of Jashpur State. The total land of 14.75 acres bearing Khasra Nos.667, 668, 133, 411, 880, 884 was given to Prem Sai. It was further pleaded that Dhobi Sai the plaintiff and father of Chandan Sai defendant No.1 namely Parsan died of diseases during life time of Prem Sai. Subsequently after death of Prem Sai according to the State custom of Jashpur, the suit land was fallen to the share of eldest son namely Ruyeeta Kanwar wherein Defendant No.2 Kashinath along-with plaintiff Dhobi Sai had a joint ownership. It was further pleaded that Prem Sai during his life time had partitioned his properties of land and Dhobi Sai came into possession of his property which was given to him by way of partition and was cultivating the said land. After death of Ruyeeta, defendant No.1 Chandan Sai s/o Ruyeeta got his name recorded in the revenue records by fraud and the share of Dhobi Sai which was given on partition by Prem Sai to the plaintiff was disputed. Therefore, the suit was filed as per the lands shown in Schedule A. So far as it relates to disputed land of 14.75 acres, Dhobi Sai and defendant No.2 Kashinath own half of the share and the declaration and possession was claimed for.

(3.) The defendant Chandan Sai contested the suit and stated that the property described in Schedule A of the plaint never belonged to Prem Sai and it was actually the property of Ruyeeta who is the father of Chandan. It was further stated that the said land had devolved on defendant by lease executed in their favour in the year 1951 and it is different from the ancestral property. It was, therefore, contended that in suit property, Dhobi Sai was never given possession of the land since it was not a part of ancestral property. It was further stated that plaintiff Dhobi Sai and ancestor of defendants namely late Parsan had acquired 24 acres of land and it was divided equally among all the three sons and each son got 8 acres of land.