JAGANNATH SINGH Vs. SRIDAM MAJHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendants' second appeal, arising out of a suit for ejectment. The suit was brought on June 25, 1955, on inter alia the following allegations:

(2.) THAT the disputed property was comprised within the raiyati holding of one Manik Mardana and it was recorded as such under Khata No. 24 in the Record of Rights. After Manik's death, his two sons, Chakar and Jagu, came into possession of the suit property as his heirs and, after the death of Jagu, his only son Anath became entitled to this property along with his co-sharer Chakar. While Chakar and Anath were in possession of the suit lands as raiyats as aforesaid, they sold the same to the plaintiffs (who claim to be occupancy raiyats of the village, where the suit lands are situate) by a registered Kobala, dated January 2, 1954, for Rs. 1,999/- and the plaintiffs became entitled to the same and the possession thereof. The defendants are the heirs of one Ram Nath Singh, who was the father of defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and the husband of defendant No. 4.

(3.) IT is the plaintiff's case that the suit lands were settled with Ram Nath Singh by Manik under a temporary sankorari Korfa settlement and Ramnath was recorded as Korfadar in respect of the same in Korfa Khata No. 2 under the aforesaid raiyati Khata No. 24, that Ramnath died some years ago and, as, according to the plaintiffs, he (Ramnath) had no permanent or heritable right in the suit lands, Manik's heirs at that time, Chakar and Anath, wanted to take khas possession of the same but at the request of defendants Nos, 1 to 3, they were allowed to continue in possession as temporary sankorari korfadars as before. After their purchase, the plaintiffs wanted Khas possession of the suit property, and, accordingly, they requested the defendants orally on the 1st of Baisakh, 1361 B. S. to quit possession of the same and they also gave them a registered notice through their pleader to that effect on February 15, 1954. The defendants, however, refused to give up possession and. as a matter of fact, defendant No. 1, in his reply to the plaintiffs' above notice, intimated to them on March 15. , 1954, that they (the defendants) were not willing to quit possession. The plaintiffs contend that, in the circumstances aforesaid, the defendants are in possession of the same as trespassers and they are liable to be evicted.