SHIVJEE SINGH Vs. SHIRAJ DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 11th December 1987 passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Gaya, in Title Appeal No. 3 of 1985/7 of 1986. By the aforesaid judgment, the appellate court reversed the judgment of the trial court dated 30th November 1984 passed by Munsif -lll Court, Gaya, in Title Suit No. 70 of 1981. The defendants of that suit are the appellants here.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff -respondents in the lower court was that 2 decimals of land of C. S. Khata No. 130, as described in Schedule -I of the plaint was purchased by the plaintiffs on the basis of an unregistered sale -deed dated 19th June, 1936 from the recorded tenants Jaldhari Singh and Dhanushdhari Singh who had acquired this land on partition from their co -sharers. The land was purchased for Rs. 45/ -. However, the defendants -appellants, on the basis of revisional survey entry in their favour, started Intermeddling with the plaintiffs possession over the said land and, hence, the suit was filed for declaration of plaintiffs ' title and for confirmation of possession and, in the alternative, tor recovery of possession.

(3.) THE suit was dismissed by the trial court on the ground that the sale -deed of the plaintiff - respondents was forged and fabricated and it had conferred no title upon them and so the suit was not maintainable and the plaintiffs had no cause of action. The appellate court reversed the judgment of the trial court on the ground that the plaintiffs were armed with at least a documentary evidence In their favour, whereas the defendants had failed to prove that their documents of purchase was lost in the earth -quake. The revisional survey record of right was, therefore, wrongly prepared and it was wrong on the part of the survey authorities to make an entry in favour of defendant -appellants Inspite - of documents of title in favour of plaintiff -respondents. When there was a document in favour of plaintiff -respondents, the oral evidence of possession was immaterial and it could not defeat the title of the plaintiff -respondents.