SHARDA KUER T Vs. BASUDEO MISTRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant No. 1 and the heir of defendant No. 2 are the appellants against a judgment of reversal. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 20.5.1992, passed by the learned 6th Additional District Judge, East Champaran, Motihari, in Title Appeal No. 28 of 1980/120 of 1992 (Basudeo Mistri and Ors. v. Baijnath Choubey), whereby the appeal preferred by the plaintiffs was allowed, the judgment and decree dated 6.5.1980, passed by the learned Munsif, Motihari, East Champaran, in Title Suit No. 4 of 1976 (Basudeo Mistri and Ors. v. Baijnath Choubey), was set aside, and the suit was decreed. We shall go by the description of the parties occurring in the plaint.

(2.) The plaintiffs case in brief is that one Sheobaran Mistri was the grand father of plaintiff No. 1 and 2. Sheobaran Mistri had two sons, namely, Bharat Mistri and-Saryug Mistri. Bharat Mistri had one son, Basdeo Mistri (plaintiff No. 1), and one daughter, Jago Devi (plaintiff No. 5). Bharat Mistri died leaving behind Basdeo Mistri, Jago Devi, and his wife, Mostt. Ramrati (plaintiff No. 4) Saryug Mistri had one son, Ramagya Mistri (plaintiff No. 2), and the latter (Ramagya Mistri) had one son, Raghunath Mistri (plaintiff No. 3). Further case of the plaintiffs is that Sheobaran Mistri had a brother, Rambaran Mistri. The latter died leaving behind a son, Jhulan Mistri. He (Jhulan Mistri) also died long ago leaving behind only one son, Kapildeo Mistri (defendant No. 4). Further case of the plaintiffs is that Sheobaran and Rambaran had his uncle, Akaloo Mistri. The latter (Akaloo Mistri) died leaving behind his wife, Mostt. Kabutari. In other words, the plaintiffs and defendant No. 4 are members of the branch of one Sheobaran Mistri and Rambaran Mistri. After the death of Bharat Mistri, plaintiffs No. 1, 4 and 5 succeeded him and came in possession of his properties.

(3.) Defendant No. 1 contested the suit. His case in short is that the plaintiffs have no concern with the suit land, neither the ancestors of the plaintiffs had any concern with the same. The R.S. Survey entry in the name of Sheobaran Mistri and Rambaran Mistri is wrong and the story of oral sale of the part of C.S. Plot No. 2181 by the ancestor of the defendants first set with Rash Bihari Ojha and Fogu Ojha is false who had never come in possession of any part of C.S. Plot No. 2181, either on the basis of sale deed or on any other basis. The further case of defendant No. 1 is that the plaintiffs can not acquire any right and title by virtue of the sale deeds dated 7.2.1948. The ancestor of the defendants first set remained in possession of C.S. Plot No. 2181. The alternative case of the defendant is that they have acquired title by way of adverse possession.