BISHUNDEO SAH Vs. NATHU YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs here is the appellant against judgment of reversal.

(2.) The appellant had filed the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession for the land described in Schedule A of the plaint and also for mesne profits from the date of dispossession till the date of delivery of possession. His case, in short, was that he purchased through two sal deeds (Exts. 2 and 2/a) dated 25th April, 1961 the suit land measuring 15 kathas 12 dhurs in mouza Dariyapur. Under Plot no. 47 appertaining to khata no. 22 from two persons, namely, Shiva Singh and Mathura Singh. Thereafter he came in possession of the land and grew crops over it According to the appellant's case, there way a partition in the family of the ancestors of Shiva Singh and Mathura Singh aforementioned in the year 1908. The land in dispute fell to the twelve annas co-sharers. In the year 1915 there was a Second Partition in that family. The disputed land was allotted to the share of Radhey Hazari, the father of Shiva Singh and grand-father of Mathur Singh. It may incidentally be mentioned that Shiva Singh is the father of Mathura Singh. In the year 1954 there was a partition among the sons of Radhey Hazari and suit land fell to the share of Shiva Singh and his, on Mathura Singh from whom the appellant purchased the land. Thereafter, Prameshwari Hazari filed a Title Petition Suit No. 4 of 1956 in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Bagusarai. In order to exert pressure on the vendors of the plaintiff, Prameshwari Hazari got registered a kebala with respect to the land involved in the suit on 19th May, 1961 after antedating its date of execution 17th April, 1961. A proceeding under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was started which was ultimately coverted into one under Section 145 of the Code. In that proceeding the possession of defendants first party (respondents first party) was declared by the Magistrate. Thereafter the defendants respondents are said to have forcibly dispossed the plaintiff appellant. In the meantime, the Title Partition Suit no. 4 of 1956 abovementioned was decreed in terms of a compromise petition which formed a part of the decree. The disputed land was confirmed under the decree to be in possession of Shiva Singh, the vendor of the plaintiff. Thereafter the appellant filed the instant the title suit.

(3.) The case of the defendants first party respondents first party was that a sale deed was executed by Prameshwari Hazari and his sons on 17th April 1961 in favour of Mossamat Sugawati Devi, respondent No. 6 and she came in possession of the suit land on the basis of that sale-deed which has been marked Ext. A-1/3. Although the sale deed was registered on 19th May, 1961, it had, in fact, been executed on 17th April 1961. The futher case of the contesting defendants was that the suit land was recorded in the names of one Brijlal Hazari and his brother in the last survey of record of rights. The co-sharers of the family had already partitioned their land prior to the last survey and entries were made in the survey record of right in accordance with their possession over the lands. The disputed land fell to the share of Brijlal Hazari in the mutual partition among their brother. After the death of Brijlal Hazari, Prameshwari Hazari came in its possession until he sold the land to Mussamat Sugawati, who came in its possession.