PRATIMA SHUKLA Vs. PATNA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff has filed this Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 16.08.1996 passed by the learned 11 th Additional District Judge, Patna in Title Appeal No.83 of 1992/26 of 1994 whereby the learned Lower Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 30.05.1992 passed by the learned Sub Judge 8th, Patna in Title Suit No.408 of 1986/19 of 1991.

(2.) THE plaintiff -appellant filed the aforesaid suit praying for declaration of title over Municipal Plot No.1122 and non - title of the defendants. The plaintiff claimed the relief alleging that the property comprised within Suit Plot No.1122 originally belonged to and was in possession of Jhalku Maharaj. He was in possession of the property. Tej Narayan Shukla acquired the property from Jhalku Maharaj and came in possession. Said Tej Narayan Shukla gifted the Plot No.1122 to the plaintiff who is niece of Tej Narayan Shukla. An unregistered deed of gift dated 25.07.1958 was executed by Tej Narayan Shukla. Plaintiff constructed a house and holding No.98A was created in her favour in Assessment Case No.469 of 1978 -79. The plaintiff is the owner of the property but it is recorded in the Patna City Municipality as Parti Kadim. Patna Municipal Corporation never came in possession nor exercised any act of possession over the suit property. The suit land was in possession and use of Shukla family. The defendant no.3 filed petition for settlement which gave rise to dispute regarding the suit property. The said application was dropped but subsequently again on 24.03.1979, he applied and collusively obtained a false report to the effect that the plaintiff has encroached Plot No.1122 by making construction. The Executive Officer reviewed the earlier order dated 28.08.1978 by order dated

(3.) THE trial court recorded the finding that Patna Municipal Corporation has the right, title over the land in question and it is recorded in the municipal survey khatiyan of the year 1933. The trial court further directed that the Patna Municipal Corporation may consider the matter of settlement in favour of the plaintiff. The trial court also recorded the finding that no notice was served under Section 508 of Patna Municipal Corporation Act. The trial court also recorded that Tej Narayan Shukla had no title over the suit plot and the gift is not a valid and legal document. Jhalku Maharaj has also got no title. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed.