JAG RAM Vs. SONIYA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 28 -6 -1997 passed by the 3rd Additional District Judge, Betiah (West Champaran) in Title Appeal No. 61 of 1996 whereby the appeal has been allowed in part decreeing the plaintiffs suit in part by setting aside the judgment and decree of dismissal recorded by the Munsif, Bagaha in Title Suit No. 66 of 1994.

(2.) THE appellants as plaintiffs had field Title Suit No. 66 of 1994 on the following contentions that one Raju Chamar was the common ancestor of the plaintiffs and the defendants and he was appointed as a Goriat by the Batia Raj and the land in question was allotted to him in lieu of his service and his name was recorded also in the revisional survey khatiyan. He worked till 1927 as gorait and after him one Shyam Lai Dusadh was appointed as Goriat and the disputed land came in possession of Shyam Lai Dusadh as the lands were being allotted goriatwise and after Shyam Lai Dusadh, the father of the plaintiffs, Triveni Mahra was appointed as gorait and the disputed land came in possession of the plaintiffs as goriaiti zagir and since then the plaintiffs are in peaceful possession of the land any by a Rent Fixation Case No. 209/1963 the rent for the disputed land was fixed in the name of Anant Mahra. A Partition Suit No. 484/1972 was filed by the father of the defendants seeking partition with respect to the disputed land in the Court of Sub -Judge, Motihari but the same was dismissed. A proceeding was brought from the side of the defendants under Section 145 Cr. P.C. against the plaintiffs in which the possession of the plaintiffs was declared and the defendants were restrained. According to the plaintiffs, a portion of the disputed land was sold and granted to different persons and the purchaser are continuing in possession over the land and also under the consolidation scheme, the Consolidation Officer prepared the records of raiyat in the name of the plaintiffs by his order dated 6 -4 -1992. but the said order was set aside by the appellate authority on 20 -4 -1993 against which the plaintiffs moved in revision before the Joint Director, Consolidation. Tirkut Division but no final order could be passed and the proceeding was stopped because of withdrawal of the notification and hence the present suit has been filed by the plaintiffs.

(3.) THIS appeal was being once heard by a Bench of this Court and vide the order dated 12 -7 -2001 substantial questions of law were framed in the following manner: