BIHAR BHOODAN YAGNA COMMITTEE Vs. TARKESHWAR PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant third party has appealed to this Court against the judgment and decree of the Sixth Additional District Judge, Bhagalpur, reversing the judgment and decree of the Munsif, Naugachhia at Bhagalpur.

(2.) The original plaintiff, late Baldeo Prasad Mandal, who has been described as a Congress man, donated six bighas of land to Bhoodan Yagna Committee during the movement launched by Acharya Vinoba Bhave in the year 1953-54 in the district of Bhagalpur. The said donation was accepted, Dan Patra prepared and confirmed under the rules framed under the Bihar Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1954. Baldeo Prasad Mandal however, filed Title Suit No. 81 of 1972 in the Court of Munsif, Naugachhia on 29-11-1972 for declaration that he had indivisible title in the properties described in Schedule 2 of the plaint, which properties he had not donated to the defendant, third party (namely the Bhoodan Yagna Committee and its Secretary).

(3.) According to the plaintiffs the land donated measuring 1.99 acres comprised plot No. 283 and Khata No. 639, as described in Schedule 1 of the plaint The suit was contested and the Committee and its Secretary maintained that there has been a valid donation of the land/properties described in schedule 2 of the plaint by the original plaintiff and not the properties described in schedule 1 of the plaint. Several technical objections were also raised on behalf of the defendants. The learned Munsif dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff had donated the suit properties described in schedule 2 of the plaint and not the property described in schedule 1 of the plaint, and, accordingly the plaintiff had no subsisting title over the lands/properties described in schedule 2 of the plaint. The learned Munsif also held that there were no infirmities in the proceedings under the Act and the rules framed thereunder. Notices, as required under R.3 of the Bihar Bhoodan Yagna Rules, 1955, were served upon the plaintiff and the Dan Patra was confirmed in accordance with law. He also found the suit barred by limitation. The plaintiffs appealed against the said judgment and decree of the learned Munsif. The appeal was eventually heard by the Sixth Additional District Judge, Bhagalpur. Although the learned Sixth Additional District Judge has found that the plaintiff had donated the properties described in schedule 2 of the plaint and not the properties described in Schedule 1 of the plaint, he has allowed the appeal holding that there has been no valid service of the notice under R.3 of the 1955 Rules and the proceedings taken for confirmation of the Danpatra, therefore, were completely without jurisdiction. The learned Sixth Additional District Judge, in view of his finding on the question of notice, has also held that the suit is not barred by limitation.