CHANDRAMA SINGH Vs. NAWARATAN KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal by the defendant against the concurrent decrees of the Courts below declaring title and interest of plaintiff No. 1 in the disputed lands and holding the en-trios made in the recent survey record of lights in respect of the same as wrong. The dispute relates to plot No. 208, area 0.56 acres, and plot No. 209, area 0.72 acres of khata No. 132 situate in Mouza Parghari' and other two plots of the same village fully described in Schedule II of the plaint

(2.) The plaintiffs case is that plaint-tiff No. 1, Smt. Nauratan Kumari purchased 19.23 acres of land in Mauza Parghari and 3.58 acres of land in Mauza Sibaidih including the suit lands from the Co-operative Society, Parghari, on the 30th July, 1940, and came in possession of the same. She is cultivating the purchased lands through plaintiff No. 2, Makundi Mahto who is her Kamatia. Shri Bhagwat Sahay, father of plaintiff No. 1, used to look after the cultivation, and he constructed the basa On a portion of the disputed land for the facility of cultivation. He also constructed a bandh for irrigational purposes, Bhagwat Sahay died sometime in 1946, and, after his death, Mahendra Prasad son of Plaintiff No. 1 began to look after the cultivation. Khas cultivation, however, did not prove profitable, and, therefore, Plaintiff No. 1 wanted to sell her lands to one Parmanand Singh of village Parghari, and a zarbiana was executed in the name of Karoo Singh, brother of Parmanand Singh and Binod Kumar Sahu and others. The transaction, however, could not materialise into a sale. This caused annoyance to Parmanand Singh. He, accordingly, formed an assembly of persons including the defendant to dispossess Plaintiff Ho. 1 from her lands. In furtherance of this object, the defendant (Chandrama Singh), Ramdhin Singh, Dar-bari Singh and others filed tanaja during survey operations conducted in the village in the year 1956 and got their names recorded as sikmidars in respect of different portions of the lands of Plaintiff No. 1. The defendant got his name entered in respect of the disputed land and got a sikmi Parcha issued in his name. Plaintiff No. 1 filed an objection under Section 103A of the Bibar Tenancy Act which was disallowed without appreciating the evidence on record. Thus, the defendant got his name entered, and sikmi parcha in respect of the suit land was issued to him. Plaintiff No. 1, preferred an appeal before the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, but the same was dismissed. Hence, the plaintiffs instituted the suit for declaration of the Plaintiff No. 1's raiyati right in the disputed lands and that the orders of the Revenue Courts and the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, were without Jurisdiction and illegal.

(3.) The suit was contested by the defendant who filed a written statement contending inter alia that the suit, as framed, was not maintainable and that the suit was barred by limitation. It was alleged that the Plaintiff No. 1 never came in Khas possession of the suit lands, nor did she ever make any arrangement for khas cultivation of the lands in the village. The allegation regarding the construction of a base was totally denied. As regards the construction of the bandh, it was said that the defendant contributed half the cost towards the construction of the said bandh. It was contended that the defendant was the bataidar of the disputed land from the time of purchase of the lands by the plaintiff and that he was coming in possession of the same ever since. Therefore, the defendant's name was rightly recorded in the survey record of rights. The execution of the zarbiana deed by the Plaintiff No, 1 was admitted, but it was contended that Parmanand Singh did not purchase the land as the defendant and other bataidars were in possession of the land which they refused to vacate.