SAKALDEEP RAI Vs. SARJUG RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the plaintiffs arises out of a suit for a declaration of title and confirmation of possession in respect of 1 bigha 6 dhurs of land appertaining to Survey plot No. 39 as recorded in 1905 or Survey plots Nos. 27, 28 and 29 according to the measurement of 1951. These lands were in the Diara of village Parsotimpur, Tauzi No. 11924.

(2.) The plaintiffs' case was that one Lotan Rai was their ancestor and that of the defendant 5th party. The Government was the proprietor of these lands, and they were being managed by the Khas-Mahal. The lands were being measured from time to time and settlements also used to be made. Lotan Rai took settlement of the lands 1 bigha, 2 kathas and 16 dhurs bearing Survey plot No. 39, and his name was recorded in the measurement papers of 1905. There was a partition between the plaintiffs and the defendant 5th party, and the lands in suit were allotted to the share of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs' ancestors sold 10 kathas out of the said lands to Racheya Rai, defendant 4th party, by a registered sale deed dated the 28th June, 1919. Later on Racheya Rai reconveyed 7 kathas 10 dhurs of land out of the said 10 kathas to the father of plaintiff No. 3 by a registered sale deed dated the 5th August, 1921, with the result that 2 kathas 10 dhurs of land were left in his possession. In the measurement papers of the year 1915 one Shiri Rai was recorded in respect of the disputed lands. The case of the plaintiffs was that the name of the father of defendant 3rd party was Shiri Raj and that of his grand-father was Ramlal Rai, and, similarly, the name of the father of Janak Rai, one of the plaintiffs, was Shiri Rai and that of his grand-father was Ram Singh Rai. The entry in the measurement paper was wrong and taking undue advantage of this, defendant 3rd party transferred the lands in suit in favour of defendant second party and the latter sold the same to defendants 1st party. The plaintiffs were throughout in possession, but the defendants 1st party interfered with their possession. The plaintiffs tried to get the said entry corrected by the Revenue authorities, but they could not succeed, and hence they instituted the present suit.

(3.) The defendants 1st party contested the suit on grounds inter alia that it was barred by limitation. Lotan Rai never took settlement of these lands and his name was wrongly recorded in 1905. They averred that the plaintiffs had neither title nor possession in respect of the lands in suit, and the sale deeds executed by defendant 3rd party and defendant 2nd party were valid. Racheya Rai, defendant 4th party was in collusion with the plaintiffs, and he was the shikmidar of defendant 3rd party. Alternatively, they claimed adverse possession in respect of these lands. Defendants 4th and 5th party supported the case of the plaintiffs, but the latter claimed joint possession along with the plaintiffs.