CHHOTA Vs. KOYALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in Civil Appeal no. 5-A/05 by the District Judge, Shahdol, dated 7-3-2005 affirming the judgment and decree dated 23-12-2005 in Civil Suit No. l-A/80 by the Civil judge, Class I, Shahdol dismissing the suit of appellant, has preferred this appeal.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant submitted that judgment and decree passed by the Court below are not in accordance with law. The Court below has applied provisions of Sections 49 and 180 of Rewa Land Revenue and tenancy Act, 1935 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') which were not applicable. Without any deed of transfer the Court below erred in holding that the father of appellant Triloki Goud transferred his right in favour of Lohra the predecessor of t he respondents. There was no dispute in respect to Survey Nos. 40 and 41 but the Court below has also dismissed the suit of the appellant in this regard. Apart from Survey Nos. 29 and 93 on which the possession of the appellant was found but the Court below erred in not granting the decree in respect of Survey Nos. 29 and 93. It is submitted by the appellant that this appeal involve substantial question of law and may be admitted.

(3.) TO consider the contention of the appellant the judgment and decree passed by the Court below and record perused. The appellant filed suit that the father of the appellant: Trilok was Pattedar and owner of the lands of which details are given in the plaint. These lands were self acquired property of triloki who remained in possession during his lifetime and after his death, plaintiff remained in possession of the land upto 1977. In June, 1978 Lohra restrained the plaintiff to plough Survey Nos. 29,40 and 41 and alleged that he is pattedar of the aforesaid land. On this, the plaintiff obtained copies of Khasra entries and on 3-11 -1979 became aware that late Lohra disclosing himself as heir of Triloki had got Patta of the disputed land in his name. During the minority of the plaintiff Lohra by impersonating some person as father of the plaintiff triloki presented him before the Tchsildar and got the Patta of all the lands which is forged one. In the alternate it is pleaded that if Triloki had got mutated the lands in favour of Lohra without any consideration then at that time in the family of Triloki, his minor son plaintiff was alive. The lands were not transferred for the benefit of the family. The document under which the lands were given to lohra discloses that it was not for the benefit of family. The aforesaid transaction was contrary to the prevalent law namely Rewa Stale Malguzari avam Kashtkari Kanoon, 1935 and the transfer was contrary to law and illegal. It was prayed that because of the aforesaid transfer the right of 'triloki or his heirs has not come to an end nor the heirs of Lohra gets any right on the basis of aforesaid transfer. The plaintiff is in possession of the land but because of the entries on revenue papers the land is recorded in the name of Lohra and also possession. The defendants who are heirs of Lohra claiming their possession on the lands so the plaintiff is entitled for possession from the defendants. With the aforesaid pleadings the suit was filed for declaration of the title and possession.