(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) The instant Civil Miscellaneous Application has been filed against the order dtd. 8/1/2018 passed by the learned Sub-Judge 1st Bhabhua, Kaimur in Title Suit No. 68 of 2011 by which the petition of the plaintiff / respondent No. 1 herein under Order 6 Rule 17 and Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the "CPC") has been allowed.
(3.) The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff / respondent No.1 filed a suit bearing Title Suit No. 68 of 2011 for declaration that the plaintiff has title over the suit land and the defendant has no concern with the land in question. The basis of the suit is that the rent receipt in favour of plaintiff has been granted by the ex-landlord and return in this regard was submitted by the ex-landlord at the time of Zamindari abolition. The records of right has been prepared in the name of plaintiff during the revisional as well as consolidation proceeding and plaintiff is in possession of suit land and acquired ownership right on the suit land. However, the Halka Karamchari on 5/2/2011 refused to grant rent receipt stating that Register- II was prepared in the name of Shusama Singh (defendant No. 2) on the basis of sale deed, then the plaintiff came to know that Shyam Sundar Singh executed the registered sale deed, in favour of Rabindra Kumar Singh on 31/7/1970 which is a fradulent document and defendant No. 1 also got excluded the name of plaintiff from the consolidation Khatiyan. Defendant No. 2 is daughter of defendant No. 1. The defendants appeared and has filed his written statement denying the claim of the plaintiff. It is stated that Jamindari was abolished on 30/12/1955 and no question arises for settlement of the land in the name of plaintiff as he was born in 1954. The mutation was allowed in the name of defendant no. 2 and the rent receipt was granted in her name and after execution of sale deed in the year 1970, there is no concern of the plaintiff with respect to the suit land. Issues were framed and evidence of the plaintiff was closed.