KOKI Vs. CHETWA CHAMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the defendants arises out of a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of plots Nos. 2768 and 2767, measuring 0.47 and 0.05 acres, respectively, under Khata No. 92 of village Jarmunney, P.S. Bagodar, in the District of Hazaribagh, and for mesne profits from the date of dispossession till the date of recovery of possession.

(2.) The case of the plaintiffs-respondents was that Khata No. 92 belonged to Tulo Barhi and Doman Barhi who were recorded as such in the Record of Rights and after their death, their heirs came to have possession over the same. As the recorded tenants were short of bullocks, they gave the land to the respondents for temporary cultivation, who came to be recorded in the Record-of-Rights as under-raiyats; but shortly thereafter, these under-raiyats gave up possession in favour of the recorded tenants who came in direct cultivating possession of the same. The further case of the respondents was that the suit land was settled by Doman and Budhan, as Kartas of the joint family, with the fathers of the respondents on taking a salami of Rs. 15/- and at an annual rental of Rs. 1/10/-. This was followed by a Hukumnama which was granted in token of the aforesaid settlement. The respondents thereafter constructed a residential house on a portion of the land in suit and cultivated the other portion appropriating its usufruct. In 1959, the appellants instigated certain persons to drive out the respondents from possession and asserted their own status on the basis of the under-raiyati entry in the Record-of-Rights. A proceeding under Section 144, Code of Criminal Procedure, cropped up which was later converted into a proceeding under Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure. It was decided against the respondents by order of the Court dated the 28th July, 1962. The present suit was filed by the respondents ou the 23rd December, 1963.

(3.) The defence of the defendants-appellants was that the suit was not maintainable; it was barred by limitation and it also suffered from defect of parties. The giving up of possession by the then tenants was denied by the appellants. They also denied the settlement in favour of the fathers of the respondents. The receipt and the Hukumnama relied upon by the respondents were said to be all spurious and manufactured.