HARI CHARAN CHAUDHARY Vs. AMRIKA CHAUDHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants respondents appellants have filed this Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 30.01.1996 passed by the learned 7th Additional District Judge, Nalanda at Biharsharif in Title Appeal No.49 of 1992 whereby the learned Lower Appellate Court allowed the appeal and thereby reversed the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 11.06.1992 passed by the learned Sub Judge II, Hilsa, Nalanda in Title Suit No.95 of 1986.

(2.) THE plaintiffs respondents herein filed the aforesaid title suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession and in the alternative, for recovery of possession over the suit property on allegation that the land measuring 20 decimals was Gairmajarua Malik Parti land which was settled by the zamindar and a Hukumnama dated 15 Magh 1345 Fasli was granted in favour of the plaintiffs. The possession was also delivered. Thereafter, the plaintiff was regularly paying the rent to the ex landlord. She constructed two rooms in the suit property. When zamindari vested, the ex landlord submitted return in the name of the plaintiff and thereafter, the jamabandi was opened in the name of the plaintiffs and the plaintiff was paying the rent to the State of Bihar regularly against the grant of rent receipts. In new survey, purcha was issued in the name of the plaintiffs showing 3 new sub plots. However, with respect to 6 decimals land, it was recorded wrongly in the name of Shyam Mali. The plaintiffs thereafter filed objection. When the consolidation operation started, the defendants got their names entered in the Certificate with respect to 10 decimals of land out of the plaintiff's land measuring 20 decimals. According to the plaintiffs, the Consolidation Officer namely Fagu Ram was son in law of the defendant, Hari Charan Chaudhary, therefore, the defendants got their names entered.

(3.) ON the Hukumnama produced by the defendants and the order passed by the Consolidation Officer, Exhibit D/1. The plaintiffs thereafter filed the title appeal before the Lower Appellate Court. The Lower Appellate Court held that the Hukumnama and the rent receipts produced by the defendants are created documents and no reliance can be placed. The rent receipts have been obtained during the pendency of the suit. The Lower Appellate Court also held that the Consolidation Officer is the son in law of Hari Charan Chaudhary and, therefore, he has passed the order in favour of his father in law. Accordingly, the Lower Appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and allowed the appeal.