RAGHUNANDAN BISWAS Vs. DHANLAL PANJIYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 30th May, 1996 passed by Sri K.B. Verma, 5th Additional District Judge, Purnea in Title Appeal No. 9 of 1984 whereby the appellate Court confirmed the judgment and decree dated 11th February, 1984 passed by sub -ordinate Judge, Araria in Title Suit No. 229 of 1960. The defendant No. 1 of that suit is the appellant here.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff respondents in the lower Court was that some of the suit lands, as described in the Schedule of the plaint, were acquired by their ancestor Arjilal Panjiyar in the year 1997 by a registered sale -deed. After the death of the original purchaser, his heirs (plaintiffs) came in possession of the suit land and remained in possession. However, during the course of revisional survey, final Khatiyan was prepared in the name of ancestor of defendants, namely, Arjilal Biswas. This cast a cloud on the title of the plaintiff and hence, they filed a suit for declaration of title and for confirmation of possession as also for declaration that the survey entry was wrong. The defendants contested the suit and contended, inter alia, that Arjilal Biswas, the ancestor of the defendants, purchased the suit land orally in the year 1943 for Rs. 95/ - and five years after the purchase, Arjilal Biswas excavated a pond on a portion of the suit land and the planted certain trees and, on the death of Arjilal Biswas, the defendants came in possession and had perfected their title by adverse possession and so the suit was barred by law of limitation as also under the Specific Relief Act.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY , the suit land was acquired by the ancestor of plaintiffs in the year 1997 by registered sale -deed and the sale -deed was filed in the lower Court (Ext. 1). This exhibit shows that it was registered on 14th November, 1927 and the consideration money is perhaps Rs, 110/ -. There are various plots mentioned in the sale -deed; some of which are suit lands in dispute between the parties. So the plaintiffs title over the suit land is a well admitted fact and this cannot be in dispute because the defendants' ancestor also admittedly took a plea of oral purchase from Arjilal Panjiyar (plaintiff's ancestor). So the defendants to succeed in their claim had to prove the oral purchase, as pleaded by them. In this connection, D.W. 1 was examined to support the fact of oral purchase but this D.W. was disbelieved by the trial Court because he failed to give the year and the date of oral purchase. This finding of the triai Court was affirmed by the first appellate Court and I am also of the opinion that this finding of the two lower Courts is not vitiated by any non -consideration or improper appreciation of the evidence. It is also relevant to mention that in the sale -deed (Ext. 1), the consideration money is Rs. 110/ - and the plea of the defendants is for purchasing the suit lands, besides other lands contained in the sale -deed for Rs. 95/ -. The sale -deed of the plaintiff was dated 14th November, 1927 and the defendants' oral purchase is referred to the year 1942. So, the price of the land cannot be less than Rs. 100/ - in the year 1943 by any stretch of imagination. In this view of the matter also, the story of oral purchase does not appear to be convincing and I have already stated above that the evidence in this connection by the defendant -appellants was highly deficient.