RAM PUKAR SINGH Vs. SITA RAM MAHTON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal by the plaintiffs is directed against the judgment and the decree of the lower appellate Court reversing the judgment and the decree of the trial Court in title suit No. 66/69 of 1960/62.

(2.) In order to appreciate the point involved in this appeal it will be necessary to state briefly the facts. The plaintiffs had instituted the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession with inesne profits with respect to 15 kathas 1 dhur of land comprised in revisional survey plot No. 196 khata No. 80 corresponding to cadastral survey plot No. 123 (whole) and plot No. 124 (part) bearing khata Nos. 43 and 44. situate in village Pakbaha in the district of Saran.

(3.) The plaintiffs' case in brief was that the land was bakasht land of the plaintiffs and their ancestors and it was so recorded in the cadastral survey. The ancestors of the plaintiffs gave the suit land in Jagir to Sheo Sharan Mahto, father of Jhagaroo Mahto alias Jhagru Prasad (defendant No. 61 and Ram Narayan Mahto (defendant No. 7) Ramrup Mahto, father of Sitaram Mahto (defendant No. 1). Lachhuman Mahto (defendant No. 2). and Ramlagan Mahto (defendant No. 3) in lieu of the service of Barahil only with right of enjoyment of the usufruct and subiect to the right of the grantor to resume khas possession in case the grantee ceased to do service. About 26 years prior to the institution of the suit Sheo Sharan Mahto was found to have been misappropriating the rent collected by him in the capacity of being Barahil. Hence his service as well as the services of the other three persons, named above, were terminated, and the possession of the land was resumed by the grantor. Subsequently, the suit land bearing revisional survey plot No. 196 was amalgamated with the plaintiffs' plot No. 195. After vesting of the Zamindari in the State of Bihar on the 1st January, 1956, the plaintiffs filed return to the authorities of the State of Bihar and showed the suit land as bakasht land of the plaintiffs. Taking advantage of the certificate entry the defendants began laying claim to the suit land, which led to the proceedings under Sections 144 and 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which an order was passed against the plaintiffs. Subsequently, the plaintiffs were dispossessed from the suit land which necessitated to the filing of the present suit on the 2nd April. 1960.