JANKI DHOBI Vs. SITARAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiffs in Title Suit No. 43 of 1973 of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Barh, have moved this Court in appeal against the judgment and decree in Title Appeal No. 12 of 1977/5 of 1977 of the Court of 4th Additional District Judge, Patna. The suit was decreed on contest against defendants 1 and 2 and ex parte against the rest. Learned Additional District Judge has, however, reversed the trial Court"s judgment and decreed (dismissed?) the suit with costs.

(2.) The dispute relates to 36 decimals of land in plot No. 5231 under khata No. 2297 of village Pandarak, Police Station Barh in the district of Patna. According to the plaintiffs the said plot of land was wrongly recorded as 6 decimals instead of 36 decimals in the khatian. It is under khewat No. 33 Tauzi Nos. 8391 and 9392. The land was Jagir Khidmati and it was recorded in the names of Bhattu Mali and Chhotu Mali sons of Chaman Mali, and sons of pro forma defendants 3 to 7. Most. Bibi Soghra along with some other co-tenants was the landlady of the khewat. The grant was absolute and the tenancy in their favour was permanent. Most. Bibi Soghra once suffered from small pox and Bhattu Mali and Chhotu Mali served her in a manner that she awarded them the grant by granting a permanent tenancy. Bhattu Mali and Chhotu Mali remained in possession of the entire 36 decimals of land. They were succeeded by Somar Mali who transferred 2 kathas of land to Jaimangal Dhobi, father of plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 and plaintiff No. 3 by a registered sale deed dated 13-8-1956. Bachan Mali, Nandlal Mali, Nand Kishore Mali and Kamleshwar Mali, grandsons of Chhotu Mali sold two kathas of the land to plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 by another registered sale deed dt. 3-12-1956. Plaintiffs accordingly came in possession of and acquired title in 4 kathas out of 36 decimals of the land of plot No. 5231. Plaintiffs since their purchase enjoyed possession by amalgamating a portion of the same with the land in plot No. 5232 belonging to them and constructing a boundary wall and planting trees etc. Since the defendants created disturbances and interfered with the plaintiffs" possession a proceeding under S.144 of the Cr. P.C. was started which was subsequently converted into a proceeding under S.145 of the Cr. P.C. This proceeding was decided against the plaintiffs on 7-11-1970. According to the plaintiffs, being emboldened by the order under S.145 of the Cr. P.C. in their favour the defendants dispossessed them.

(3.) Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in their written statement stated that Bibi Soghra was not 16 annas" landlady of the tauzi in question but had only 2/3rd share therein and 1/3rd share belonged to one Girija Kuer. The tenancy which was Jagir Khidmati was not absolute because it was in lieu of the service that the tenants were required to render and when they failed to perform as required by the landlord, Soghara estate resumed possession and the tenancy stood terminated. Defendants 1 and 2 thereafter took settlement of 28 decimals of land from Most. Bibi Soghra representing her 2/3rd share in the name of defendant No. 2 and came in possession as tenants. They paid rent to the ex-landlord and thereafter to the State. Their names were mutated in the revenue records by virtue of their title and possession. They disputed the plaintiffs" claim about purchase by them and exercise of possession upon the land in question and denied the allegation that they interfered with the possession of the plaintiffs.