RAM EKBAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer and the Joint Director of Consolidation contained in Annexures-9 and 11 whereby the title and interest of respondents 4 to 13 have been declared in respect of the disputed lands mentioned in Schedules I and II.

(2.) The land mentioned in Schedule I originally belonged to one Ram Lochan Rai. The lands under Schedule II were acquired by the petitioners by means of a deed of exchange from the landlord of village Atmi. Subsequently, the petitioners exchanged the acquired lands with the lands mentioned in Schedule II and, as such, the petitioners claim absolute title over the lands mentioned in Schedule II and contended that the same could get be the subject-matter of partition,

(3.) In order to appreciate the points raised by the parties, it is relevant to notice a few facts which are most relevant in this case. One Rameshwar Rai had two wives and from the first wife he had one son Dukhi Rai. Petitioners are the sons of Dukhi Rai From the second wife, he had four sons, namely, Dharamdeo Rai, Shiv Narayan Rai, Shiv Shankar Rai and Sitaram Rai, Respondents 4 to 13 are their descendants. After the second marriage, a dispute arose between the family of Dukhi Rai and Rameshwar Rai, etc., which led to separation and partition in the family. Dukhi Rai separated from his father and brothers after getting his separate takhta but the share of Rameshwar Rai and his four sons remained joint. On account of continuous bitterness and quarrel in the family. Dukhi Rai left his parental house and started living with one Ramlochan Rai who was an old unmarried person. The said Ramlochan Rai treated them as son and daughter-in-law and was very happy with the treatment used to be given to him by the said Dukhi Rai and his wife. Being so pleased with them, Ramlochan Rai made an oral gift of all his properties to Dukhi Rai. Ramlochan Rai died in 1920 and after his death the name of Dukhi Rai was substituted as an heir of Ramlochan Rai in all the relevant revenue papers as also in some case records which were pending in courts. In a Money Suit No. 341 of 1920 between Palakdhari Rai and Ramlochan Rai pending in the court of Munsif, Dukhi Rai was alone substituted as an heir of Ram Lochan Rai and paid the decretal amount in instalments in pursuance of the decree of the court. Similarly, several mortgage deeds executed by Kamlochan Rai were also redeemed by Dukhi Rai. These documents are Annexures 2 and 3 to this application. Thus, Dukhi Rai, even during the lite-time of Ramlochan Rai, had come in possession of the properties and after his death Dukhi Rai continued to be in possession. The name of Dukhi Rai was mutated in the landlord's serista as also in the Canal Department in respect of the properties of Ramlochan Rai and Dukhi Rai used to pay rent and rent receipts were granted in his favour (Annexure-4).