RAMSARUP SINGH Vs. MUNESHWAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the defendant No. 1 under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court from a* judgment passed by a learned single Judge of this Court on the 4th of October 1958, decreeing the plaintiffs' suit, and setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court by which the suit was dismissed. Plaintiffs 1 to 9 are some of the cosharer landlords. The other plaintiffs 10 to 15 are tenants. Of them, plaintiffs 10 to 12 claimed occupancy right over the lands given in Schedule 1 of the plaint and plaintiffs 13 to 15 claimed such right over Schedule 2 lands. Though the suit was instituted for several reliefs in respect af the five schedules of lands narrated in the plaint, at a later stage it was only confined to the reliefs asked on behalf of plaintiffs 10 to 15 (the tenants) in respect of Schedules 1 and 2. Thus for the purpose of this appeal we have to take that the suit was for declaration of title and confirmation of possession of plaintiffs 10 to 15 over the lands described in Schedules 1 and 2 of the plaint. Defendants 2 to 12 were the other cosharer proprietors of tauzi No. 402 mauza Garhi Bishanpur in the district of Monghyr.. Thus plaintiffs 1 to 9 and defendants 2 to 12 constituted the 16 annas proprietors of that tauzi.

(2.) The case of plaintiffs TO to 15 is that the lands in Schedules 1 and 2 of the plaint belong to them as tenants with occupancy right and they have been in possession all through. A stamp paper was purchased by defendant No. 2, a cosharer landlord, with a view to executing a deed of settlement in respect of Schedule 3 lands in favour of plaintiff No. 12 on payment of a Nazrana of Rs. 900/-. The cosharer landlords, plaintiffs 1 to 8, put their signature on that blank stamp paper before it was written up and taking advantage of that, defendant No. 2, in collusion with a deed writer and other cosharer landlords, defendants second party, got a deed of settlement in respect of the lands including those described in Schedules 1 and 2 of the plaint in the name of defendant No. 1 who was one of his creatures. Some cosharer landlords like defendants 9, 10 and 12, though mentioned in the document as executants, did not execute the same as they did not give their signatures to that, That deed had to be compulsorily registered on the 21st May, 1949, although it purported to have been executed on the 1st of December, 1947. (The document was marked as Ext. A-3 in the trial). In spite of this collusive deed of settlement, defendant No. 1 did not succeed in taking possession of the lands in suit but to clear the cloud over their title the plaintiffs brought the suit.

(3.) Defendants 9, 10 and 11, some of the cosharer landlords of the defendants second party, filed a written statement supporting the plaintiffs' written statements on behalf of defendant No. 1 (alleged settlee), defendants 2 to 8 and 12 disputed the claim of the plaintiffs and pleaded that the lands in Schedules 1 and 2 were never in their (plaintiffs') possession, nor did they have any tenancy right in the same. The settlement taken by defendant No. 1 under the registered document was genuine and on behalf of all the cosharet landlords. It should be mentioned here that the suit out of which, this appeal arises was instituted on the 20th of May, 1950, within a year of the registration of the deed of settlement in the name of defendant No. 1.