DEHAL MAHTON Vs. NATHUNI RAM MARWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has been preferred by the defendant -appellant against the judgment and decree dated 22.7.1986 passed by Sri M.K. Verma, 3rd Additional District Judge, Munger in Title appeal No. 105 of 1978 whereby he has been pleased to set aside the judgment and decree dated 28.9.1978 passed by Sri Braj Nandan Sahay, Munsif 2nd, Munger in Title Suit No. 163 of 1969 and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are as follows:

(3.) ACCORDING to the case of the defendants -appellants, it has been admitted that Manu Lal Marwari was the tenant in whose name the Khatian of the suit land was prepared. It was also accepted that the name of Siya Mahton was recorded as non -occupancy raiyat during the survey proceeding and was shown as Sikamidar and as such, a Sikami khata was opened in the name of Siya Mahton. The defendants have denied this fact that Siya Mahton was shown as Sikamdar only for two years. They have also denied this fact that Siya Mahton had surrendered his Sikami right immediately after the publication of the final survey operation i.e. 20.12.1939. It has been asserted by the defendants that Siya Mahton continued in peaceful possession over the suit land and after his death, the defendants have been coming in continuous and peaceful possession over the suit land till now without any intervention. It has been asserted that even after the purchase of the suit land, the plaintiff has not come in possession of the suit land even for a minute and it is false to say that the survey authority found possession of the plaintiff and had recommended the name of the plaintiff to be recorded in Survey khatian with respect to the suit land. It has been stated that the Assistant Settlement Officer has rightly Page 1190 declared that the defendant is entitled to continue as Sikamidar over the suit land. It has further been stated that the defendants are coming in possession of the suit land and the question of giving threat to the plaintiff for dispossession from the suit land does not arise. On the basis of above pleadings, the defendants have prayed to dismiss the suit.