DASRATH PRASAD Vs. SHIV DAYAL SAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is against the judgment of affirmance passed in Title Appeal No. 23 of 1993 by 6th Additional District Judge, Saran at Chapra affirming the judgment passed by 1st Subordinate Judge, Saran at Chapra in Title Suit No. 133 of 1990.

(2.) BRIEFIY stated the case of the plaintiff -appellants is that the two sons of common ancestor Kuli Mahto, namely, Matarjit and Chunni Mahto separated after his death and partitioned his entire property. Matarjit also died much before survey leaving behind his only son Suba Mahto, who came in possessiori of his entire property. Similarly, Rupa and Ram Dayal, sons of Chunni Mahto also came in possession of the share left by him. Though the names of Suba Mahto as well as Rupa and Ram Deyal Mahto were jointly recorded in survey Khatiyan but separate possession of both the branches were shown. During the pendency of the suit the plaintiffs by amendment brought the fact that Chunni Mahto had a daughter Kunti Devi. Rupa Mahto died unmarried and Ram Deyal Mahto came in possession of his share. Suba Mahto died issueless in the year 1930 and his wife predeceased him. Thereafter, Ram Deyal Mahto being the only surviving male member came in possession of the separate share of Suba Mahto also and the plaintiffs, who are heirs of Ram Deyal Mahto have been coming in possession of the share of property of Suba Mahto to the knowledge of all since 1930, as such, they have perfected their title by way of adverse possession also. Their further case is that Kunti Devi was not the daughter of Suba Mahto rather she was the daughter of Chunni Mahto and she had no right to execute the sale deed in question in favour of defendant nos. 1 to 3. Thus, they filed the suit for declaration that the properties mentioned in Schedule I of the plaint belong to the plaintiffs and the sale deed executed in favour of defendants 1 to 3 by Kunti Devi is void and inoperative.

(3.) THE trial court on consideration of the pleadings as well as evidence both oral and documentary adduced on behalf of the parties came to the conclusion that Kunti Devi is the daughter of Suba Mahto and defendant nos. 1 to 3 are rightful purchasers from defendant no. 4 and the plaintiffs have no right, title and interest in the suit land, and, thus, dismissed the suit. The lower appellate court on appeal affirmed the findings of the trial court.