KESHAVRAM Vs. KUBERCHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal preferred by the appellants / defendants was admitted for hearing on the following substantial question of law: -

(2.) The suit property was originally held by one Narayan. He died leaving behind his widow Hiramati and daughter Khirobai. Banshidhar is son of Khirobai and the suit property was inherited by him (Banshidhar). During the minority of Banshidhar, Khirobai being his natural guardian, executed a sale deed dated 18-1-1966 (Ex.P-1) alienating the suit property in favour of the plaintiffs. It is the case of the plaintiffs that Satyanand was uncle of Khirobai and in 1973-74, he got his name mutated in the revenue records and in the proceeding initiated under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 being Case No.77/75, order was passed on 3-11- 1976 in which possession of Satyanand was found and revision preferred by plaintiff No.1 was dismissed which necessitated the filing of suit for possession based on title stating inter alia that the plaintiffs have purchased the suit land from Banshidhar through his natural guardian mother, as such, they are entitled for recovery of possession of the suit land as well as for damages.

(3.) In the said suit, the defendants took up a plea that they are in possession since long after death of Satyanand and in the proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, possession of Satyanand - predecessor-in-title of the defendants was found by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate as well as by the revisional Court, as such, the plaintiffs have no right and title over the suit land and Khirobai had no right and title to execute Ex.P-1 in favour of the plaintiffs, that too without leave of the competent Court under Section 8(3) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Act of 1956'). The defendants also took the alternative plea that they are in possession of the suit land for a very long time, as such, they have perfected their title by way of adverse possession.