BISHWANATH PRASAD VERMA Vs. BHAGWAT PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff is the appellant here whose suit was decreed but the appeal by defendant 2, who is respondent 1 here, was allowed.

(2.) The property involved in the suit is a small piece of land adjacent sought of plot 69, shown in the map attached to the plaint, and marked with the letters DEF. The relief sought is an order directing defendant 1 (respondent 2 here) improvement Trust, Gaya to execute and register a sale deed for the land marked with the letters DEF in the aforesaid map. There was also a prayer for recovery of possession in case it was found that the plaintiff had been dispossessed by defendant 2 (respondent 1).

(3.) The case of the plaintiff is that he owned and possessed a house standing over survey plot No. 275 under Khata No. 12 measuring .04 acres bearing Municipal holding No. 70 (i) Ward No. IX, Mohalla Rampur, P. S. Civil Lines, town Gaya. This house and land were acquired by defendant 1 (respondent 2) for its purpose rendering the plaintiff ~ appellant a displaced person and under the provisions of the Bihar Town Planning and Improvement Trusts Act (Bihar Act XXXV of 1951) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') he was conferred with special status in regard to the settlement of the land by the Gaya. Improvement Trust. Consequently the appellant was allotted a piece of land measuring 116 ft. East to West and 47 ft. North to South out of plot 69, leaving the remaining portion of the land in the said plot with defendant 1, as indicated in the map attached to the plaint and marked with the letters A B C D and D E F, respectively. Since the land in dispute was adjacent to the land of the appellant, defendant 1 offered the same to the appellant for Rs. 822.14 Paise, which offer was accepted and the money was duly deposited and accepted by the defendant Trust. The area -of the land was 101 sq. yards. The offer is apparent from the communication of the Gaya Improvement Trust dated 2-6-1970, which is Ext. 1'. The deposit of Rs. 822.14 paise is proved by Ext. 3, which is the money receipt form, and the delivery of possession is proved by Ext. 4, which is a copy of the note sheet page 23 of file No. XX-30-69, From this receipt it is clear that the delivery of possession of the disputed 101 sq. yards of land was handed over to the appellant by the authority and it was accepted by him (appellant) on 18-7-1970. The suit was filed, therefore, to seek specific performance of the contract by the Gaya Improvement Trust (respondent 2) on the basis of the above documents, after giving due notice to the latter, as stated in paragraph 27 of the plaint and as required by Sec. 151 of the Act. The purported notice is Ext. 1/b dated 21-10-1970. Respondent 2 admittedly is the owner and occupier of plot No. 65, which is to the South of the disputed land. The further case of the plaintiff is that being adjacent to the disputed land respondent 2 started unjustifiably raising a claim to that portion. 4. The case of defendant 2 (respondent 1 here) is, apart from the usual objections, like non-maintainability of the suit, lack of cause of action, absence of the requisite statutory notice to the Gaya Improvement Trust (in short, 'Trust'), that prior to the acquisition of the lands in Mohalla Rampur by the Trust there were big chunks of parti lands, a portion of which was purchased by him (defendant 2) from one Smt. Parul Rani under a registered sale deed in the year 1954, over which a boundary was constructed, which included the entire land in the suit. Thereafter the defendant constructed his residential house on that land and planted trees, etc. The suit land, therefore, has been in possession of defendant 2 for more than 12 years before the institution of the suit. Hence, the defendant acquired indefeasible absolute title over the land by adverse possession. According to this defendant, when the map for Anugrahpuri was prepared, his land had been shown in one block without assigning any number to it as it was apart from the land in possession of defendant 1 (the Trust) and the two plots, i. e., plots Nos. 65 and 69, of defendant 1, flanked the land of this defendant 2, which was without number. According to defendant 2, therefore, the plaintiff -- appellant was allotted only 116 ft. x 47 ft. of land by defendant 1 and he could not acquire any right, title or interest over the land in suit. A dispute arose between the parties which led to a proceeding under Section 144, Cr. P. C. (in short 'the Code'). A settlement was arrived at between the parties at the instance of Shri Khwaja Midhat Noor, an advocate of Gaya, which compromise was filed before the authority concerned. Although it is not disputed that a compromise was arrived at, the plaintiff in his plaint has stated that he did not do so with a clear mind and was under psychological strain due to the proceeding under Section 144 of the Code and it was under that state of mind that he signed the compromise, which, according to him, does not bind him at all. The defendant further denies the story of compromise by any undue pressure or influence. By letter dated 6-7-70, defendant 2 had written to the Trust laying his claim to the disputed land and stated that he had learnt that the plaintiff had deposited money for the same. His prayer was that possession should not be given to the plaintiff and his money should be returned. In spite of this communication the Trust went ahead with the proposal to sell the land to the plaintiff, which is apparent from Exts. 3 and 4, referred to above. The letter of defendant 2 is Ext. C.