GULAM ALI SAHA Vs. SULTAN KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANTS are the appellants. The suit is for declaration of title in plots 517 and 518, for confirmation and in the alternative for recovery of possession. A right of way has been claimed over plot Nos. 522, 1212, 1213 and 1214. There was a prayer for removal of obstruction and for recovery of damages. Plaintiffs are brothers. Their case is that they purchased plots 517 and 518 from one Md. Rasul khan by a registered sale deed (Ex. 5) dated 20-8-37. Plaintiffs' vendor had purchased the lands from the ancestors of the defendants by a registered sale deed (Ex. 4) dated 17-6-19. Plaintiffs' case is that from 1919 to 1937 their vendor was in possession. He enclosed the area, dug a tank, grew certain trees and used the lands as a Ban. Plaintiffs continued to possess in their own right, title and interest after their purchase in 1937 till 1959. In the summer of that year, defendants put up a fence and blocked the passage from all sides. Later on they Xtrespassed into the suit area and removed certain crops. Defendants admitted the sale deed of the year 1919 but challenged it as being Benami without consideration. They asserted their own possession all through and denied plaintiffs' possession.

(2.) THE courts below concurrently found that the plaintiffs had title to plots 517 and 518 and that they were all through in possession. They also declared plaintiffs' right of way over plots 522, 1212, 1213 and 1214. The trial Court decreed toe claim for damages. The lower appellate Court disallowed the claim. Plaintiffs have not filed any appeal or cross-objection disallowing the claim for damages.

(3.) PRIMA facie the second appeal is concluded by pure finding of fact. Mr. Ranjit mohanty made a faint attempt that the registered sale deed of the year 1919 was not supported by consideration. The document has been found to be genuine and acted upon by the Courts below. The recital in the document is that the consideration had been paid. The statement was made by the deceased predecessor in interest of the defendants and is binding on them as being against the pecuniary and proprietary interest or the vendor under Section 32 (3) of the evidence Act. Ultimately Mr. Ranjit Mohanty did not challenge the genuineness and passing of consideration under the sale deeds Exts. 4 and 5, and the possession of the plaintiffs and their predecessors in interest.