LAWS(PAT)-1984-10-5

MANGNINATH Vs. PHOOL MOHAMMAD DHOBI

Decided On October 19, 1984
MANGNINATH Appellant
V/S
PHOOL MOHAMMAD DHOBI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for declaration of title with respect to Plot No. 3136, Khata No. 592 situate in village Balia within Goriyakothi police station in the district of Saran. According to the plaintiffs' case, one Madar Dhobi was the raiyat of the suit land under the tenure holders. When their intermediary right vested in the State of Bihar, they filed returns under the Land Reforms Act showing it to be their Bakast land. Subsequently rent was settled in their favour. Thereafter, the plaintiffs, who are descendants of Madar Dhobi filed an application praying that rent should be fixed in their names. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, refused their prayer saying that the order passed in favour of the plaintiffs cannot be revised. The plaintiff-respondents, therefore, filed a suit for declaration that the disputed land is their raiyati land and the defendants have no right in the same. Another declaration that was prayed for was that the fixation of rent in favour of the defendants was illegal and the order to that effect passed by the Deputy Collector was against law.

(2.) The suit was contested by the defendants. Their case, inter alia, was that the name of Madar Dhobi showing him as the raiyat of the land was wrongly recorded in the record of rights. According to them, the land was Bakast of the tenure holders and they were in its possession. According to them, therefore, on the vesting of their intermediary right in the State of Bihar, the land became their raiyati land under S.6 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act.

(3.) The courts below were of the opinion that the survey entry showing Madar Dhobi as a raiyat of the land in question was correctly recorded. It was also held that the plaintiffs had title to the suit land and were in its possession. The courts below rejected the argument advanced on behalf of the defendant-appellants that the suit was hit by S.42 of the Specific Relief Act. They, therefore, decreed the suit. Thereafter, this second appeal has been filed.