SINGRAI BASKEY Vs. FAGU HEMBRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiffs are appellants against the reversing judgment in a suit for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and in the alternative for recovery of possession, if they are dispossessed during pendency of the suit.

(2.) Plaintiffs in the suit have furnished two genealogies. Schedule 'A' of the genealogy pertains to the family of the plaintiffs and the proforma defendant nos.7 to 14, whereas schedule 'A-1', genealogy pertains to the family of defendant nos.1 to 6. Both the genealogies are furnished hereunder.

(3.) The defendant nos.1 to 6 filed a written statement pleading inter alia that Bhunda Majhi was not the owner of the suit land. In 1906 ROR, the name of Mara Majhi, common ancestor of the defendants, was recorded as the owner of the suit property under khata no.17, plot no.359/627. They are in possession. In 1927 settlement, the property was wrongly recorded in the name of Bhunda Majhi. Taking advantage of the wrong recording, the plaintiffs disturbed in their possession, for which, proceeding under Sec.145 Cr.P.C. was initiated. The said proceeding ended in their favour. There was a partition in their family. In the said partition, the suit property fell to the share of defendant no.4.