DEODHARI SINGH Vs. MULCHAND HAZAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. This second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff-appellant against the judgment and decree dated 6.9.1989 passed by Sri Sitaram Choudhary, Sub Judge I, Rhabhua in Title Appeal No. 21 of 1989 reversing the judgment and decree dated 16.5.1989 passed by Sri B.R. Prasad, Additional Munsif, Bhabhua in Title Suit 131 of 1986/76 of 1988. By the said judgment, and decree, the learned Subordinate Judge allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the case of the plaintiff-appellant is that the plaintiff filed a title suit bearing Title Suit No. 131 of 1986 / 76 of 1988 against State of Bihar and others for correction of revisional survey entry and for declaration of his right, title and interest and also for confirmation of possession over the suit land bearing C.S. Khata No. 185, C.S. Plot No. 551 measuring an area of 10 decimals corresponding to R.S. Khata No. 435 R.S. Plot No. 1090 / 2048 in the court of Munsif, Bhabhua. The appellant further prayed that if he is found dispossessed then in the alternative the relief for recovery of possession be granted and further prayed that the defendant second set (State of Bihar) be restrained to settle the suit land to anyone. Further case of the plaintiff-appellant is that the father of the appellant was ex-landlord and the suit land was Sahan in the cadestral survey. His father had given the suit land to his labourer Sheonandan Dusadh who was utilising the land from before the cadestral survey as such the suit land was recorded in his name in cadestral survey. The said Sheonandan Dusadh died issueless and thereafter the suit land came in khas possession of the father of the appellant. At the time of abolition of Zamindari the return of the suit land was filed in the name of the appellant as he was throughout in possession of the suit land without any interference. During revisional survey, the suit land was wrongly recorded in the name of State of Bihar but since this fact was not known to the appellant, he did not file any objection. The factum of wrong entry came to the knowledge of the appellant in 1986 and hence, after giving notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 16.8.1986 he filed the suit. Respondents - first set, who were defendant Nos. 1 to 3, filed their joint written statement and denied the claims made by the appellant.

(3.) IT appears that one Mulchand Hajam filed intervention petition which was allowed and by order dated 8.12.1987 he was impleaded as intervenor-defendant and thereafter he filed his written statement. From perusal of the written statement of the intervenor-defendant it appears that this defendant has also denied this fact that the father of the plaintiff was the ex-landlord of Mauza Deohalia and that over plot No. 551 of khata No. 185, the plaintiff had got his house and Sahan in which his labourer Sheonandan Dusadh was residing. He has also denied this fact that after the death of Sheonandan Dusadh, the plaintiff's father obtained possession of the suit plot as Sheonandan Dusadh was issueless. He has also denied this fact that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit plot since the date of death of Sheonandan Dusadh. The intervenor-defendant has also denied this statement of the plaintiff that a few years before abolition of Zaminidari, the house standing over the suit plot fell down during heavy rain and -thereafter the plaintiff started keeping Goitha, tying cattle and growing vegetables over the suit plot. The intervenor-defendant has stated that Nad, Charan and Marhi standing over the suit plot belonged to him. He has also denied this fact that the plaintiff had submitted return of the suit plot after vesting of the Zamindari. The intervenor-defendant has claimed that the revisional survey khatian was correctly prepared about which the plaintiff had full knowledge but he had not raised any objection. The intervenor-defendant has stated that the cause of action, as alleged by the plaintiff, is imaginary. Further case of the intervenor-defendant is that Sheonandan Dusadh was the real owner of the suit plot and he died issueless. During his old age, the intervenor-defendant and his father served Sheonandan Dusadh and having pleased with the service provided by the intervenor-defendant and his father, he orally gifted the suit plot to the father of the intervenor-defendant. This happened about 50 to 60 years ago and since then the intervenor-defendant has been coming in possession over the suit plot and was residing in the house standing thereon but during flood, the house standing over the suit plot fell down and thereafter he started keeping Nad, Charan over the suit plot and constructed Marai over the same. The intervenor-defendant has also asserted that he has got his land adjacent to the suit land and both the lands are intermingled and there is no ridge between the lands of the intervenor-defendant and the suit land which proves title and possession of the intgrvenor-defendant. On the basis of the above pleadings, the prayer has been made to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff.