NITYA LAL ALIAS NITYANAND KARAN Vs. PATIA KEWANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is directed against the judgment dated 24 -9 -1987 and decree dated 7 -11 -1987 passed by 3rd. Sub -judge. Aurangabad, in Title Appeal No. 24/83 reversing the judgment of the trial Court dated 7 -2 -1983 passed in title suit No. 119/80/36/82. The defendants of the suit are the appellants here and they were respondents in the 1st appellate Court as well where they lost.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff -respondents in the trial Court was that plot No. 921 under khata No. 3 was under the proprietorship of Sundarganj and Kunda estate. It was the Bakasta land of the ex -landlords. The aforesaid plot has a total area of 61 decimals. Sundarganj estate granted Hukumnama No. 115 dated 15 -1 -1941 on accepting Nazrana of Rs. 75/ -. The landlord of Kunda estate also granted Hukumnama No. 215 dated 16 -2 -1938 on payment of Rs. 65/ -. These Hukumnamas were executed in favour of Shyam Sundar Prasad, who came in possession and remained so till he sold the suit plot No. 921 including other lands to Chameli Devi. Subsequently, Chameli Devi transferred six decimals of plot No. 921 to one Hajari Kewani by registered sale -deed dated 14 -3 -19.63, Thereafter, Hajari Kewani gifted nine decimals of plot 921 to plaintiff -respondents Patia Kewani and Jugeshwar Kewani through a registered deed of gift dated 11 -7 -1972, The plaintiffs came in possession and they used to settle palm and other trees standing on the suit land to various persons. However, defendant -appellants who had an evil eye on the suit land started creating trouble and this led to a proceeding under Section 144, Cr. P.C. which was decided in favour of defendants. So. the suit was filed seeking declaration of the plaintiffs title over the suit land and the defendants were sought to be permanently restrained from disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiff -respondents.

(3.) The case of the defendant -appellants was rather, that 30 decimals of the suit plot was settled to the father of the defendants by Kunda estate by sada Hukumnama in the year 1939 and the defendants accordingly came in possession through their father and they remained so and the proceeding was rightly deeded in their favour. The plaintiffs had no title nor possession over the suit land and, therefore, they sought dismissal of the suit.