JAGBANDHAN NATH TEWARY Vs. THUIYA MAHLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal by plaintiff No. 2 is directed against the judgment and the decree passed by the 1st Additional Judicial Commissioner of Chotenagpur. Ranchi, dismissing the appeal filed by plaintiff No. 2 against the judgment and the decree passed by the Additional Subordinate Judge, Ranchi, by which the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed.

(2.) The suit was originally filed by Smt. Ugramani Kuer as the sole plaintiff for a declaration of her title in respect of seven plots of land measuring 6.25 acres in village Chuglu, Police Station Gumla, district Ranchi mentioned in the schedule of the plaint and for recovery of possession over the same after evicting the defendant respondents therefrom. Subsequently, the present appellant was added as plaintiff No. 2 in the suit on the ground that Smt. Ugramani Kuer executed a deed of gift during the pendency of the suit in favour of plaintiff No. 2 with respect to her, entire properties. Later on, Smt Ugramani Kuer died. Originally, there was a Mukarrari tenure including the land in dispute in village Chuglu which was the ancestral property of Balbhadra Nath Tewary. husband of Smt Ugramani Kuer who got this interest exclusively in his share on partition. Balbhadra Nath Tewary died leaving Smt. Ugramani Kuer as his sole heiress and she came in exclusive possession over this tenure. Plot No. 97 which is one of the plots in dispute, was in occupation of Ledwa Mahli, grand-father of the defendant-respondents during the time of revisional survey as a tenant at will under the plaintiff. Plot Nos. 98 and 101 which are also some of the plots in dispute were in occupation of Raiya Uraon and Chaiya Uraon also as tenants-at-will under the plaintiff. The other four plots in dispute were also let, out on a Thika settlement for a period of three years to Ledwa Uraon and defendant No. 1 on behalf of the entire joint family, including his grandfather Ledwa Mahli. In or about the year 1933. Ledwa Mahli and the members of his family including the defendants as also Ledwa Uraon vacated all the lands let out to them on Thika settlement. In or about the year 1949, Raiya Uraon and Chaiya Uraon also vacated plot Nos. 98 and 101. The de-defendant-respondents, however, did not vacate plot No. 97 whereupon Smt. Ugramani Kuer filed Title Suit No. 15/25 of 1948/49 for recovery of possession over plot No. 97. The suit was subsequently decreed and possession over plot No. 97 was delivered to the plaintiff of that suit. The plaintiffs case is that she came in possession over the entire plot in dispute and remained in khas possession over the same till 1-1-1956 when the estate of Smt. Ugramani Kuer vested in the State of Bihar Shortly after the vesting of the estate the defendant-respondents surreptitiously entered into possession over the disputed land. Smt. Ugramani Kuer asked the defendants to vacate the land but the defendants requested the plaintiff to allow them to cultivate the land on behalf of the plaintiff as Bataidars. Smt. Ugramani Kuer thereafter filed an application before the prescribed authority for fixation of rent in respect of the disputed land which is deemed to have been settled with her as raiyat by the State of Bihar in view of operation of Section 6 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'). The defendants objected before the prescribed authority and urged therein that the rent should be fixed in their names as they were in possession on the day of vesting. The contention of the plaintiff was that these defendants are trespassers and are in wrongful possession over the disputed land and that the plaintiff is entitled to obtain khas possession over the same after evicting the defendants therefrom. Hence, it became necessary for the plaintiff to institute a suit.

(3.) The suit was contested by defendants 2 and 3 only. They contended, inter alia, that they are coming in exclusive possession over the disputed land in their own right and adversely to the plaintiff who never came in possession over these plots. They denied to have taken adhbatai settlement of the disputed land from the plaintiff.