SHANKAR CHOUDHARY Vs. BINOD PATHAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants/appellants have filed the appeal under Section 100 of the CPC aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 2.6.2008, handed out by the Ist Additional District Judge, Gopalganj in Title Appeal No. 60/1989/ 58/2007 setting aside the judgment and decree dated 25.07.1989 passed by the First Subordinate Judge, Gopalganj in Title suit no. 106/1984 For convenience sake, the parties hereto shall be referred by their status at the trial.

(2.) The plaintiffs (respondents herein) filed the suit for declaration of their right title and possession over the land set out under different schedules of the plaint and also sought for recovery of possession. Different sets of plaintiffs claimed title over different schedules.

(3.) According to plaintiffs, their ancestor Shyam Baran Pandey and others were tenure holders Brittdars of the suit land mentioned in schedule-I and were recorded as such in khewat and revisional survey khatiyan. The plaintiffs being descendants of Brittdars remained in possession thereof and dealt with the suit land after paying rent to the State of Bihar. Some part of the suit land was sold by their ancestor and remaining part/area was partitioned in which schedule 2 fell in the share of plaintiff nos. 1 to 3, land of schedule no. 3 fell in the share of plaintiff nos. 4 to 6 whereas land of schedule 4 fell in the share of plaintiff nos. 7 to 8. On vesting of Zamindari the suit land became the raiyati land and rent was assessed as per Section 6 of Bihar Land Reforms Act whereafter they started paying rent. During RS operation the suit land was wrongly recorded as "Batai nisf? in the names of Katwaru and Budhan Mahto who had executed an unregistered Ladavi deed in their favour. The contesting defendants arbitrarily got four sale deeds executed by defendant no.7 ( heir of Katwaru and Budhan Mahto) on 25.1.1975. Armed with those sale deeds defendant nos. 1 to 6 made attempts to take forceful possession leading to the proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. which was decided against them on 14.6.1980 against which revision application was filed and ultimately the suit was preferred.