PRITHWINATH SINGH Vs. SURAJ AHIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the plaintiffs is directed against an order passed under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) The facts of the case may be shortly stated. The plaintiffs instituted a suit on the 18th November, 1946, for declaration of their title to, and recovery of possession over, 10.24 acres of lands along with mesne profits. Their allegation was that the defendants were mortgagees of the lands, and the plaintiffs had redeemed the mortgage. The trial Court dismissed the suit on the 8th March, 1948, and thereupon the plaintiffs filed First Appeal No. 143 of 1948 in this Court. Admittedly, the estate, which included the lands in suit, vested in the State of Bihar on the 1st January, 1956. This Court heard First Appeal No. 143, and, by a judgment dated the 28th January, 1958, allowed the appeal. The suit was thus decreed not only for declaration of title and recovery of possession but also for mesne profits. The defendants filed Civil Appeal No. 533 of 1960 in the Supreme Court. On the 6th May, 1959, the plaintiffs took delivery of possession of the lands in dispute. By a judgment dated the 4th May, 1962, the Supreme Court, while upholding the findings of the High Court that the lands in question were bakasht lands and the suit was not barred by limitation, allowed the appeal, holding that the plaintiffs had, by, reason of the estate, having vested in the State of Bihar and also by reason of the fact that the lands could not be deemed to have been settled with the plaintiffs under Section 6 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) as they were not in Khas possession on the date of vesting, lost the right to recover possession. The suit was thus dismissed. The decision of the Supreme Court is reported in Suraj Ahir v. Prithinath Singh, AIR 1963 SC 454.

(3.) The plaintiffs filed an application for review of judgment before the Supreme Court; but, by an order dated the 10th December, 1962, that Court dismissed the review application. That decision is reported in Prithi Nath Singh v. Suraj Ahir, 1963 BLJR 675: (AIR 1963 SC 1041).