VIDYA PATI PANDEY Vs. SURENDRA NATH PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application has been directed against the order dated 18.1.1999 passed by Executive Magistrate, Buxar in Case No. 105 of 1997 under Section 145 of the Cr. PC whereby and whereunder he declared the possession of the 1st party/opposite party 1st set, Surendra Nath Pandey and the 2nd party/opposite party 2nd set Ravindra Nath Pandey and others over the plot No. 22 and declared the possession of 2nd party 1st set/opposite party 2nd set over plot No. 37.

(2.) The proceeding was initiated on the basis of a petition filed by 1st set/opposite party on 11.3.1997 who claimed his exclusive possession over plot Nos. 22 and 37 appertaining to Khata No. 16 on the basis of the entry in the Survey records of rights. The second party 1st set also claimed exclusive possession over both the plots and second set of 2nd party claimed possession over the disputed plots as the joint ancestral property. It appear from the genealogical table given in the petition that Bechu Pandey and Mahadeo Pandey were the common ancestors of both the parties and the dispute is between the branches of late Bechu Pandey and Mahadeo Pandey. It is admitted position that the record of rights of both the plots stood recorded during the revisional survey in the remarks column of the record of rights the possession of Bechu Pandey was entered. It is the case of the 1st party that there was a family arrangement and the disputed land has been coming in his peaceful possession since long and the opposite parties have got no right or concern with the same.

(3.) The case of the 2nd party 1st set is that the first party and second party second set are in collusion with each other and as a matter of fact the disputed land was recorded in the joint names of Bechu Pandey and Mahadeo Pandey but in possession column the name of Bechu Pandey was recorded in the record of rights of 1925. Thereafter, there was no separation in the family and the disputed land was allotted to the share of Bechu Pandey along with other lands and Bechu Pandey came in exclusive possession over the disputed land and accordingly, his exclusive possession was recorded by survey authority in the possession column. The further case of opposite party second set is that they are descendants of Bechu Pandey and they have been possessing the disputed land since long and paying rent in respect therefore which was admitted by 1st party as head of the family during the revisional survey operation and accordingly, objection petition No. 160/1997 filed before the survey authority was allowed without any objection from the 1st party or 2nd party second set. The first party in his show cause filed in the case 348(M) 96 under Section 144 of the Cr. PC admitted the possession over plot No. 37 of the 2nd party/1st set but in the present proceeding he has falsely claimed his possession over both the plots.