BABAN LAL Vs. COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the plaintiffs is against the judgment of reversal passed in Title Appeal No. 22 of 1992 by VIth Additional District Judge, Siwan setting aside the judgment passed by Subordinate Judge I, Siwan in Title Suit No. 34 of 1985.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the case of the plaintiff-appellants is that Mangani Lai, Jurhawan Lai and Muneshwar Dayal, the heirs of ex-landlord, settled 1 Bigha 13 katha 1 1/2 dhurs of land out of 2 Bigha 4 Katha 2 dhurs pertaining to plot No. 169 khata No. 689 with the plaintiffs in the year 1339 Fasli corresponding to calendar year 1932 A.D. and on the abolition of zam/ndar/submitted return in the name of plaintiffs, resulting in opening of Jamabandi in their name and they had been paying rent to Government of Biharwith respect of aforementioned land. The remaining 11 katha 10 dhurs land was settled with the plaintiffs on 18.11.1945 after execution of Hukumnama by Mathura Prasad Singh, son of ex-landlord Jodhan Prasad Singh and a practising lawyer at Chapra, but at the time of abolition of zamindari Mathura Prasad Singh submitted return at Patna and the same could not be sent either to Siwan District or Guthani Circle, therefore, no jamabandi could be prepared. Thereafter, plaintiffs filed an application for correction of Jamabandi. Karamchari and Circle Inspector gave favourable report, but Circle Officer, Guthani rejected the application and on appeal the D.C.L.R., Siwan dismissed it with an observation that the suit land was recorded as Pond and as such, is Shariat land vested in Government of Bihar. Hence, the plaintiffs filed suit for declaration of their title over the suit lands and the order dated 24.4.1984 and 24.5.1984 passed by Circle Officer and D.C.L.R., Siwan respectively be declared illegal and void.

(3.) IT is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing of the appellants that the lower appellate Court has not assigned any reason while discarding the evidence of P.Ws. He further submitted that the lower appellate Court has failed to appreciate the findings of the trial Court recorded in paragraph 9 of its judgment that not only the P.Ws. rather the defendants in the written statement admitted the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land.