RADHA KANT SINGH Vs. MAHADEO SAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, 6th, Munger, in Title Appeal No. 37. of 1980. The aforesaid appeal was preferred before the Additional Judge against the judgment of the trial court passed by Madan Mohan Chaudhary, Munsif, in title suit no. 37 of 1977 dismissing the plaintiffs suit. First appeal was allowed and the plaintiffs suit was decreed, against which defendants of the sul preferred this second appeal.

(2.) THE suit was filed for declaration of title and recovery of possession with mesne profits. In a nut -sheii the suit was that the descendants of the recorded tenant Prabhu Paswan and Bino Paswan sold the suit land over plot no. 47/51 along with other land to the plaintiffs by registered sale deed dated 3.2.67. The plaintiffs gifted three decimals of the land to the Girls School and thereafter they remained in possession of the suit land. However, in the year 1972 the defendants of the suit uprooted the potato crops and this led to a proceeding under Sections 144 and 145 Cr. P.C. This was decided against the plaintiff. Thereafter, the defendants emboldened by this decision dispossessed the plaintiffs. Then suit was filed claiming relief as mentioned above. The defendants took the plea that Prabhu and Bino were not the descendants of Tula or Durga who were the earlier descendants of recorded tenant. The defendants rather had purchased the suit land from the descendants of the recorded tenant orally in the year 1936 itself for Rs. 41/ -, towards which a receipt was granted. It were they who had gifted the portion of the suit land to the Girls School. The plaintiffs were never in possession of the suit land and the proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P.C. was rightly decided in their favour. The trial court dismissed the suit. However, the appellate court after discussing the entire gamut of evidence, documentary as also oral, decided that the plaintiffs vendors were very much the descendants of recorded tenant and sons of Durga and Tula. It was also held by the appellate court that the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit land until they were dispossessed by the defendants, as alleged. So the suit was decreed in full.

(3.) THE law formulated in this appeal by order dated 24.9.86 was to the effect "whether the finding of the lower appellate court with regard to the relationship of the alleged vendors (wrongly mentioned as vendees) Bino and Prabhu Paswan with the admitted recorded tenant Jitan Pas - wan is correct and legal in the eye of law on the basis of the recitals made in the disputed sale deed (Ext. 1) in favour of the plaintiff". So, it appears that it was the sale deed (Ext. 1) filed by the plaintiff which formed, perhaps, the basis of law formulated in the second appeal. On perusal of the judgment of the 1st appellate court in all its details, l come to the conclusion that the learned 1st appellate court did not decide the issue relating to the relationship of vendors of the plaintiff Bino and Prabhu simply on the basis of Ext. 1 which was the documentary evidence, rather on the basis of several other documents as also oral evidence. So, it appears that the finding of the 1st appellate court was recorded on the basis of the facts alleged and facts denied. That finding did not suffer from any legal error. So, the law formulated for this Court was, perhaps, formulated erroneously. Since the finding of the appellate court referred to the facts, I am of the opinion that it becomes final and no other substantial legal question has been raised before this Court in order to assail the finding of the 1st appellate court on facts. After going through the entire gamut of evidence as also the finding arrived at by the trial court and 1st appellate court, I come to the conclusion that no legal error was committed by the 1st appellate court so far the findings of fact are concerned. In my considered opinion the appellate court gave its finding after discussing the entire gamut of evidence oral and documentary, and came to a definite conclusion in order to hold that the plaintiff -respondents were entitled to the reliefs claimed for by them.