MOST. SHEORAJ DEVI Vs. SHUKHDEO NONIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs -appellants who are purchaser(s) of the suit land from the heirs of the two daughters of Nath Mishra have filed the present appeal aggrieved by the judgment and decree 30.08.1986 and 08.08.1986 respectively passed by the Sub -ordinate Judge -III, Aurangabad in T.A. No. 69. of 1978 affirming the judgment and decree dated 11.07.1978 and 18.07.1978 respectively passed by the Munsif, Aurangabad in T.S. No. 224 of 1971.

(2.) THE background facts leading to the present appeal may briefly be noted and they are as follows: -

(3.) THE defendant 1st set contested the suit and filed the written statement stating therein that Nath Mishra was, of course, the Jagirdar of the suit land who died leaving behind the grand son(s) (being the sons of the two daughters). The suit land devolved on them. Ishwar Nand Pathak became the 'Karta ' of the family of one daughter and in such capacity he settled 83 decimal of land to Anandi Bhagat (ancestor of the contesting defendants). Similarly, Vidya Nand Pathak the 'Karta ' of family of another daughter settled remaining 83 decimals of the land in favour of the father of contesting defendants. In token of such settlement, the Hukumnamas (Exts. C and C/1) were executed on 1337 Baishakh Fasli. The defendants were since then in exclusive possession over the suit land. They used to cultivate and distribute the produce with the landlord against the rent receipts which were, however, missing. The defendants on the basis of the aforesaid statement denied to have dispossessed the plaintiffs. The trial court on a consideration of the of rival pleadings framed diverse issues and permitted the parties to lead evidence. On behalf of the defendants the Hukumnamas executed by the heirs of Nath Mishra in 1937 Baishakh Fasli were produced and exhibited as Exts. C and C/1. On a consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties, the trial court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved thereby the plaintiffs filed appeal. The appellate court re -appraised the evidence and ultimately concurred with the finding(s) recorded on all the core issues by the trial court. Resultantly, the appeal was dismissed. Dissatisfied therewith, the plaintiffs -appellant(s) have filed the present appeal which was admitted to hearing and the following substantial question of law was formulated: -