LAWS(PAT)-1960-4-12

MANIK MAHTON Vs. KALICHARAN MAHTON

Decided On April 07, 1960
MANIK MAHTON Appellant
V/S
KALICHARAN MAHTON Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the plaintiff, who succeeded in the trial Court, but lost the suit in the lower appellate Court. It appears that Buka and Chaitan were two brothers. Buka had four sons, (1) Dubraj, (2) Kabiraj, (3) Thakurdas and (4) Baidu. Chaitan had a son Kartick, who had three sons (1) Nunu, (2) Nayan and (3) Bhadra. Dubraj had a son, Doman, and the plaintiif, Manik, is the son of Doman. Shibu (defendant No. 1) is the son of Kala, one of the sons of Kabiraj. Defendants 5 and 6 are grandsons of Kabiraj, by his second son, Luthu. Defendant No. 2 is the grand-son of Thakurdas. Defendant No. 3 is the son of Kartick, and defendant No. 4 is the grandson of Kartick by another son, Nayan. The area of the lands in suit is 15 bighas 17 dhurs which are a part of khata No. 63 of the revisional Survey, commonly known as "Abdul Settlement", situated in village Holudboni, within Serai kela police station. The above area forms part of Thicadari Man lands having an area of 41 bighas and odd. In the cadastral Survey, commonly known as "Connolly Settlement" the entire Thiccadari Man lands, along with some other rayati lands of the parties, were recorded in Khata No. 42 jointly in the names of Dubraj, Kabiraj, Thakurdas, Baidu and Kartick. In the revisional survey, however, the Thicadari Man lands were recorded in Khata No. 63 in the name of Doman, the father of the plaintiff; but the lands in dispute in the present suit were recorded in the remarks column as being in possession of Kala, father of defendant No. 1, Jethu, lathes of defendant No. 2, and Nunu, the eldest son of Kartick. All these three persons have been described in the Swatwalipi (Exhibit 8), prepared at the time of the preparation of the record-of rights ia connection with the Abdul Settlement as "Bhai Thicadar" (brothers of the Thicadar). According to the rule of the Seraikela State, the Thicadar used to be given Man lands for rendering services, and on the death of a Thicadar, the same used to be resumed by the State, which had a right to appoint a new Thicadar; and on such appointment, the Man lands used to vest in the newly appointed Thicadar, ordinarily however, the eldest son of the deceased Thicadar used to be appointed as such. The above Thicadari Man lands were neither transferable nor heritable :

(2.) The case of the plaintiff is that Dubraj, his grandfather, was appointed Thicadar of the village, and he got the Man lands, including the suit lands, as Thicadari Man lands. On his death, his son, Doman, was appointed Thicadar of the village, and he got the suit lands, along with other Thicadari Man lands, and was, accordingly, recorded in Khata No. 63 of the revisional servey. Doman died in 1940, and the plaintiff then made an application for being appointed as Thicadar in his place. The suit lands, along with other Man lands, however, were on the death of Doman, resumed by the State. Subsequently, the plaintiff was appointed Thicadar of the village, and a patta, dated 19-9-1941, was granted to him. Since then, the plaintiff was in peaceful possession of all the Thicadari Man lands, including the suit lands. In 1948, when the political situation in the State regarding its merger in Bihar or Orissa was unsettled, the defendants and their ancestors forcibly trespassed into one of the plots of the Thicadari Man lands, which is not the subject matter of dispute in the present suit. The plaintiff filed a criminal case against them under Sections 143 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code, and all the accused persons were convicted. Nevertheless the defendants again wanted to disturb the possession of, the plaintiff, which led to a proceeding under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in which also the order was made absolute against the defendants. But, on expiry of sixty days of the order, the defendants, in June, 1949 forcibly dispossessed the plaintiff from the suit lands, and a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was started. In that case, the defendants were declared to be in possession of the suit lands. The plaintiff, therefore, instituted the suit, out of which the present appeal arises, for a declaration of his title to, and recovery of possession over, the suit lands after evicting the defendants therefrom.

(3.) The defendants filed a joint written statement contending, inter alia, (1) that the disputed lands, along with other lands of the family, were jointly recorded in the Connolly Settlement in Khata No. 42 in the names of the different members of the family, and all the members of the family owned and possessed them jointly; (2) that, a few years before the Abdul Settlement, there was amicable partition amongst the members of the family, and the suit lauds fell to the share of the defendants, who have been continuing in possession thereof since the date of partition; (3) that the lands in dispute were acquired by Buka and Chaitan; and (4) that, the defendants and their ancestors having remained in possession for over twelve years, acquired occupancy rayati by adverse possession, and are not, therefore, liable to be evicted. At the trial, one more point was taken in defence, and it was alleged that the ancestors of the defendants had converted the suit lands, which were waste lands, into paddy lands by their own labour, and thereby also they acquired occupancy rayati right therein. The other pleas taken in defence need not be mentioned, because, on those points the decision of the Courts below is in favour of the plaintiff, and they have not been pressed before us in this Court.