DEO KRISHNA SINGH Vs. HAREUDRA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the defendants first party against a judgment of affirmance.

(2.) It is not necessary to give a detailed recital of the facts involved in the suit. The short facts for the consideration of the questions raised at the bar and which are relevant may be stated thus. There are two plots of land being plots i and 252 measuring 19 kathas 16 dhurs and 1 bighas 7 kathas respectively under khata no. 105 in village Pipraulia within police station Phulparas, the total area of these two plots being 2 bighas 3 khatas 16 dhurs. They have been described in schedule no. 1 of the plaint. Out of this total area, the subject-matter of the suit is only 10 kathas of land towards the south west corner of survey plot no. 252 respondents. According to the plaintiffs case and the concurrent findings of the two courts below, the location of survey plots 1 and 252 is such that to all intents and purposes, they constitute one compact block, survey plot no 1 being adjacent north to survey plot no. 252. There was proceeding initiated under section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) which was later on converted into one under section 145 of the Code. During the pendency of the proceeding under section 145 of the Code, the subject-matter of dispute was attached. On the 9th May, 1964, the Magistrate decided the proceeding under section 145 of the Code against the plaintiffs respondents. Pursuant to that order, the property was released by the criminal court in favour of the defendants-appellants. Soon thereafter, and admittedly within the period of limitation, the instant suit was instituted by the plaintiffs respondents, as already mentioned earlier, for a declaration of title and confirmation of possession, in the alternative, for recovery of possession with regard to only a portion of plot no. 252 aforesaid, namely, 10 kathas from south west corner of it.

(3.) Both the courts below have concurrently found the plaintiffs respondents case to be true and have found that they were all along in possession of the land in dispute. They have, accordingly, confirmed the possession of the plaintiffs-respondents.