KOORA RAM (DECEASED) AND ORS Vs. PRABHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendant's Second Appeal against whom suit for declaration and possession was partly decreed by the trial Court but, in appeal, it stands decreed in toto.

(2.) The facts pleaded are that land comprised in Khewat No. 90, Khatauni No. 339, Khasra No. 184 measuring 9 Biswas, and Khewat No. 93, Khatauni No. 259, Khasra No. 185, measuring 9 Biswas, belonged to the plaintiffs and defendants No. 2 to 7, prior to the consolidation proceedings held in the village in the year 1960. The case of the plaintiffs is that defendant No. 1 had got no right, title or interest in the land comprising Khasra Nos. 184 and 185 prior to the consolidation but he got allotted in his name the land comprising Rectangle No. 12, Killa No. 26, in connivance with the consolidation authorities in lieu of the abovementioned land. The plaintiffs claimed that they had shares in the well known as Panghatwala, situate in the land comprising Rectangle No. 12, Killa No. 26. They further claimed that they were in possession of the suit land but the name of defendant No. 1 had been wrongly entered as suit land but the name of defendant No. 1 had been wrongly entered as suit land but the same of defendant No. 1 had been wrongly entered as owner of this land in the revenue record. On these allegations, they filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they were the owners of the land comprising Rectangle No. 12, Killa No. 26. In the alternative, they claimed a decree for possession of the suit land in case it was found that they were out of possession. In the Written Statement, defendant No. 1 pleaded that he was rightly allotted the land in suit, comprised in Rectangle No. 12, Killa No. 26, in lieu of the land comprising Khasra Nos. 184 and 185 held by him prior to the consolidation. It was also pleaded that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit as it was for the consolidation authorities to rectify the mistake, if any.

(3.) The trial Court found that the plaintiffs and defendants No. 2 to 7 were not the owners of Rectangle No. 12, Killa No. 26, but the plaintiffs alone were still the owners of 2 Biswas of land, covered by land out of old Khasra No. 185, which area had been allotted to defendant No. 1 and was included in the present Khasra No. 12/26. It was further held that the order of the consolidation authorities transferring these 2 Biswas of area to defendant No. 1 was illegal and without jurisdiction. In view of that finding, the suit was decreed only to the extent of 2 Biswas, the remaining suit having been dismissed. Dissatisfied with the same, the plaintiffs filed an appeal whereas the defendants filed their cross-objections. The learned Senior Sub Judge with enhanced Appellate Powers came to the conclusion that the suit land comprised by Rectangle No. 12, Killa No. 26, was allotted in consolidation proceedings in lieu of the land comprised by Khasra Nos. 181 min., 184 min., 185 min., and 186 min. It was further found that defendant No. 1 had nothing to do with the land comprising Khasra No. 185 in which the well in dispute was situate prior to the consolidation proceedings. In view of these findings, the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs as under :-