SARJUG RAI Vs. BHAGWAN RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff-respondent instituted a suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession or, in the alternative, for recovery of possession in respect of an area of 0.2 acres of agricultural lands appertaining to survey plot No. 865 in Khata No. 120 of village Dariapur Sibala under Dinapur police station.

(2.) The plaintiff claimed title to the suit land on the basis of a registered deed of sale dated the 19th September, 1960, executed by the heirs of Kheyali Rai and Punit Rai who had purchased it in the year 1949 by another registered deed of sale from the heirs of the recorded tenants of the said Khata, who were in exclusive possession of the said plot. After tracing the title of his predecessor-in-interest who, according to him, had been in possession of the suit land throughout, he claimed to have got possession of the land on the basis of his purchase. His further case was that the defendants were also competing with him to purchase the suit land, and having failed in their effort, they started interfering with his possession which led to the initiation of a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. During the pendency of the said proceeding itself, the present suit was instituted.

(3.) The suit was contested by defendants 1 to 3 and 6 who disputed the genuine title as well as possession of the plaintiff. According to their case, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff had abandoned the suit land along with his house which was resumed by the landlord, who settled the same in the year 1925-26 with Ramdahin Bhagat and his brother Mangru Bhagat, and on their death, Munni Bhagat, the sister's son of Mangru Bhagat, inherited the property and amalgamated the same with his ancestral plot No. 866; and, after his death, the defendants being his sons and other heirs came in possession over the land in question. According to their case, all the rent receipts and chaukidari receipts with respect to the said house constructed by Ramdahin and Mangru were issued in their favour. On these allegations, the defendants claimed to be in possession of the suit lands. In the alternative, however, it was also pleaded that they, having remained in possession of the suit land a long time, acquired an indefeasible title in the suit lands.