JAI PRAKASH Vs. RAJ KUMAR PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The original plaintiff had filed this First Appeal against the Judgment and Decree dated 16.4.1981 passed by the learned Addl. Subordinate Judge-II, Munger in Title Suit Nos. 14 of 1973/19 of 1980. On the death of original plaintiff, Keshav Sao, the present appellant have been substituted. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of his title and non-title of the defendants on the suit land. The plaintiff also prayed for eviction of the defendant and recovery of possession of the suit land and also prayed for arrears of rent and damages. According to the plaintiff late Nawab Abdul Wahab Khan was Jamindar and Sheikh Abdul Sattar, Sheikh Abdul Hai and Sheikh Abdul Haque, 3 brothers were the tenant in occupation of the suit land. On the death of landlord, his heirs became the Jamindar. In Money Suit No. 154 of 1947, a decree was passed against the tenants and in execution case No. 1 of 1948, the heirs of ex-landlord Abdul Wahab Khan purchased the property. Sale certificate was issued on 11.8.1949 and delivery of possession was given to the auction purchaser on 19.11.1949 and accordingly, the auction purchaser came in Khas possession of the property. There was partition in the year 1951 and the suit property fell in the share of Mostt. Bibi Maimuna Sultana Begum. She let out the suit land to Raghunandan Prasad Singh who was keeping a coal depot on the suit land which is vacant land. Subsequently, in the year 1963 Mithoo Ram took the suit land on rent who continued as tenant till April, 1970. Thereafter, the defendant first party were inducted as tenant on monthly rent of Rs. 30/- only with respect to half portion only. A deed of agreement was entered into between Bibi Maimuna Sultana Begum and Ram Kumar Prasad. Subsequently, on the permission the defendant first party occupied the rest half portion and was using it as coal depot. The plaintiff agreed to purchase the suit land from Sultana Begum on 15.7.1971 but before execution of the sale deed Bibi Maimuna Sultana Begum died. However, her heirs executed and registered a sale deed on 12.4.1972 with respect to suit property. The plaintiff purchased the suit property for his personal use and occupation and, therefore, he requested the defendant to vacate the suit land but they did not vacate. In reply to the notice, the defendant denied relationship of landlord and tenant.

(2.) The defendant appeared and filed contesting written statement. Their main contention is that Bibi Maimuna Sultana Begum never inducted them as tenant. The defendants were legal representative in possession on the suit land for more than 12 years on their own right. They denied the alleged agreement and partition of the year 1951. According to them, the sale deed is not genuine and it is without consideration. The defendants got the land from the recorded tenants 20 years ago and they are continuing in possession of the suit land without any objection from any quarter as such have acquired title by adverse possession. The defendant has constructed on the suit land and also has inducted tenants.

(3.) On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the trial Court framed various issues. Issue No. 5 was as to whether claim of the plaintiff that he acquired title on the suit land is correct and the defendant first party and also second party have no right title on the suit land. Issue No. 6 is as to whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of possession of the suit land after dispossessing the defendant. These two issues were the main issues which were decided by the Court below recording a finding that the defendants are in possession at lest since 1956 to the knowledge of everyone so they have acquired title by adverse possession. Accordingly, the trial Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit.