ABHI MANUYU TRIPATHY Vs. SHAMBHU OJHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the appellants against the judgment and decree dated 9th of May, 1991 passed in F.A. No. 149/94, whereby ihe appeal has been dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 22.12.1973 passed by the 4th Subordinate Judge, Ara in Title Suit No. 72/69/25/72 dismissing the suit has been affirmed.

(2.) THE appellants were plaintiffs in the suit. They filed the abovementioned suit for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and in alternative for recovery of possession with respect to about 9 acres of land described in schedule lll of the plaint stating therein that their ancestor Sukhraj Ojha was separate from his brothers. He had two sons, Bandan Ojha and Sheo Gulam Ojha. Sheo Gulam Ojha died in state of jointness with his brother Bandan Ojha. His wife also died in state of jointness with Bandan Ojha issueless. Bandan Ojha also died in state of jointness with his sons Babli Ojha and Maheshwar Ojha. Maheshwar Ojha also died issueless. His wife died prior to him and Babli Ojha died before cadastral survey leaving behind his widow Deokalo Kuer and daughter Manturna Devi. His widow Deokalo came in exclusive possession of entire property left by Babli and her name was also entered in the survey record. The sons of Manturna Devi filed the abovementioned suit for declaration as stated above. Deokalo also executed a deed of gift on 7.12.1957 in favour of the plaintiffs with respect to the lands given in schedule I of the plaint and the plaintiffs came in possession of the same. The properties mentioned in schedule II of the plaint are coming in possession of Bandan Ojha in whose favour Most. Deokalo Kuer had executed Rehan deed. Deokalo Kuer was in possession though the Rehandar. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force and Deokalo acquired permanent right and title over the disputed land has also disposed of properties and, as such, she also executed deed of gift in favour of the plaintiff -appellants whose names have been recorded in the serista of the State of Bihar as well as survey records. They are paying the rent, Deokalo had no issue except the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs and their mother were living with Deokalo even before the execution of the deed of gift. The defendants -first party had no concern with the properties of Most. Deokalo Kuer. The defendants, however, started unnecessary trouble and initiated 144 Cr.P.C. proceeding and the same was converted into one under section 145 Cr. P.C. The said proceeding was decided on 14.9.1969 against the plaintiff -appellants with respect to the lands in question mentioned in schedule III of the plaint. By virtue of the order passed in 145 Cr. RC. proceeding the defendants tried to interfere with the possession of the plaintiffs which had necessitated the filing of the suit.

(3.) DEOKALO Kuer, defendant no. 5 filed separate written statement supporting the case of the plaintiffs.