BHAGAT RAM Vs. BRAHMA NAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 4.9.1997 passed by the learned District Judge, Bilaspur whereby he has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants (hereinafter referred to as the ˜plaintiffs) and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 24.5.1988 passed by the Sub Judge, 1st Class, Ghumarwin dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction and in alternative for possession. According to the plaintiffs, they were owner in possession of three parcels of land measuring 87 -14 bighas, 12 biswas and 5 -1 bighas respectively in Village Nagian Pargna Bachhretu Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur. According to the plaintiffs, plaintiff No.1 is the owner in possession to the extent of half share and plaintiff No.2 alongwith other proforma defendants is owner in possession of the remaining half share of this property. The plaintiffs alleged that plaintiff No.1 got her land cultivated through Thanu, father of Brahma Nand, defendant No.1 and she used to pay labour charges for the same. It was alleged that Thanu who was the Lumbardar mis -utilized his position and got the revenue entries changed and possession of the suit land was shown to be that of his son, Brahma Nand, defendant No.1 as non -occupancy tenant. The plaintiffs came to know about this fact only during consolidation proceedings and thereafter she laid a challenge to the same. The Director, Consolidation vide his order dated 5.2.1980 held that defendant No.1 was a non -occupancy tenant over the share of the plaintiff which order was incorrect and therefore, this suit.

(3.) THOUGH four questions have been framed, the basic legal questions which arise are: