JAGO DEVI Vs. BHAGIRATH PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23rd December, 1987 and 6th January, 1988 respectively passed by Additional District Judge XIII, Patna, in Title Appeal No. 78 of 1979, reversing the judgment of the trial Court dated 31st March 1979 passed in Title Suit No. 125 of 1969. The defendants of the suit are the appellants before this Court. The suit of the plaintiff-respondents was dismissed by the trial Court and the first appellate Court reversed the same against which the defendants have preferred the aforesaid second appeal.

(2.) THE facts admitted by the pleadings of the parties are that there was one Plot No. 794 having a total area of 10 acres 5 decimals recorded in the names of three persons. THE three recorded owners of this plot entered into partition and 1/3rd of the middle portion of the plot fell to the share of Srinaryan Singh and Bindeshwri Prasad Singh jointly after the Survey. Srinarayan Singh and Bindeshwri Singh also later effected partition of their share over this plot and the eastern half measuring an area of 2 bigha 13 katha and odd dhurs fell to the share of Srinarayan Singh and the western half of the same area fell to the share of Bindeshwri Prasad Singh. THE entire area of Plot No. 794 was situated just north of Danapur-Maner road. Subsequently, 10 kathas was taken in settlement by the father of the defendants, namely, Bhekha Rai from Bindeshwari Prasad Singh. Up to this extent, it is the plaintiff's admitted case, THE defendants also admitted the aforesaid facts pleaded by the plaintiff-respondents. However, the case of the plaintiffs further was that cne Deo Nandan Mahto who was an employee of Srinarayan Singh, took advantage of simplicity and deafness of Srinandan Singh and started laying claim over a portion of the suit land in possession of Srinarayan Singh and resultantly there were litigations, civil and criminal, between Srinarayan Singh, Deonandan Mahto and even the plaintiffs who were the sons and widow of Srinarayan Singh and in all these litigations, the plaintiffs' title and possession were confirmed and Deo Nandan Mahto lost throughout. So Deo Nandan Mahto set up defendants to lay a claim over the suit land of 10 katha and his led to a proceeding under Section 145, Cr. P.C. which was decided in favour of the plaintiffs. However, on revision to the High Court, the matter was remanded on certain technical grounds. During the pendency of this proceeding, the suit was filed for declaration of plaintiffs" title and for confirmation of their title or in the alternative for recovery of possession.

(3.) THE contention of the appellants' lawyer that the appellate Court failed to give its reason to disagree with the findings of fact by the trial Court also does not appear to be tenable. THE Appellate Court has given its views and opinion regarding the receipts and the sanction plan of the Municipality. THE appellate Court has also referred to the evidence of P.Ws. and D.Ws. and came to the conclusion that the testimony of these witnesses did not specifically lead to substantiated the case of the defendants regarding adverse possession. Moreover, the Court of appeal is a Court of fact and law both and it is free to form its own opinion on the evidence on the record and it need not necessarily State how it disagrees with the finding of the trial Court, although in some cases, it may be appropriate for the appellate Court to give its reasons for disagreeing with the trial Court in order to validate its findings.