SATYA NARAIN MISSIR AND BINOY KUMAR MISSIR BOTH SONS ARE SRI HARI MOHAN MISSIR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have challenged Annexure-1 dated 28.4.1981, passed by the Circle Officer, Rupouli, Purnea, Annexure-2 dated 16.5.1983, passed by the D.C.L.R. and Annexure-3 dated 14.12.1990, passed by the Collector, Purnea arising out of a mutation application filed on behalf of the petitioners.

(2.) Kunjal Missir had two sons Kali Missir and Prem Nath Missir. Prem Nath Missir had a son Chander Mony Missir. Deya Nath Missir had a son Hari Mohan Missir who had two sons namely Satya Narayan Missir and Binoy Kumar Missir who are the petitioners in this application. Chandra Mony Missir had two wives. The first wife Maya Devi died in 1915. Maya Devi was survived by a son Durga Missir who was married to Rajeshwari Devi. Durga Missir is said to have died in the year 1939. The second wife was Blavani Missrain who died in the year 1977. According to the petitioners Blavani Missrain was given the disputed lands as maintenance after her husband's death. She came into possession of the said lands, after the amendment of the Hindu Succession Act in 1956. After her death her step daughter-in-law Rajeshwari Devi came in possession of the lands. Rajeshwari Devi filed a mutation case to get her name recorded in the revenue records. An objection was filed on behalf of the respondents in which they claimed that the said land has been mutated in their favour some years back by filing three separate mutation cases. According to the petitioners, the respondents Jageshwar Jha (R4) and Sitaram Jha (R5) being an advocate clerk used to look after the affairs of Blavani Missrain and in course of looking after her affairs had stolen her documents and got his name along with his brother's name mutated for the said lands.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners on the other hand submits that all the documents have been obtained by the practicing fraud. The compromise decree is not a genuine document. The records would indicate that Blavani Missrain had not appeared in the case and entered into a compromise. It is said that Sitaram Jha had managed the affairs by misleading Blavani Missrain. It has been submitted that the D.C.L.R. and the Additional Collector made attempts to get] the records of mutation proceeding but failed. The respondents were called upon, 'to support their case by producing certified copies from the mutation orders in their favour but they too did not produce a chit of paper before the consolidation authorities or before this Court. It is submitted that the orders of the three Courts are fit to be set aside on the ground that the documents on which the Courts are relying are not genuine.