SHANTI DEVI Vs. LAXMAN MAHTO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dtd. 31/5/2014 and 13/6/2014 respectively passed by Sri Ravi Shankar Sinha, the Adhoc Additional District and Sessions Judge-1, Patna in Title Appeal No. 6 of 1997 by which the said appeal was allowed and the judgment and decree dtd. 10/12/1996 and 16/12/1996 passed in Title Suit No. 82/89-79/96 by Sub Judge VII, Patna, has been set aside.

(2.) The original plaintiff Bahadur Mahto filed the Title Suit No. 82/89-79/96 praying to declare that plaintiff has got right and title over the Suit Property and to declare that the registered sale deed dtd. 11/12/1987 executed by Manorama Devi in favour of Laxman Mahto with regard to Suit Property is illegal, inoperative and not binding on the plaintiff and also for declaration of possession of the plaintiff with alternative prayer that if he is found dispossessed, decree for recovery of possession be passed and the plaintiff be put in possession thereof and the relief of injunction was also sought.

(3.) The case of the plaintiff is that north to the plot no. 224, there was Parti land having area of 1.16 dhurs belonging to one Mostt. Gangia Devi, pertaining to Municipal Plot No. 1357. The said Gangia Devi sold Municipal Plot No. 1357 to Smt. Manorama Ganguly through registered sale deed dtd. 7/1/47. Manorama Devi entrusted the land to plaintiff for care taking and later on Manorama Ganguly and her husband orally gifted the said Municipal Plot no. 1357 to the plaintiff out of love and affection. Plaintiff after taking possession of the Suit land, started cultivating crops and vegetables and constructed some rooms on the Suit land and also installed deities thereon and the Suit Property came in exclusive possession of the plaintiff, who has also perfected his title over the same by law of adverse possession. The further case of the plaintiff is that the said Suit Property is his personal property but his brother Ganauri Mahto started demanding partition in the said property. The plaintiff's name has been mutated in Municipal records and is paying Municipal Tax for the house existing on the Suit land and also installed deities and he is in possession but the defendants are interfering in his peaceful possession challenging his title.