DASSAIN NONIA Vs. RAMDEO PRASAD PATWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by defendants 1 and 2 is directed against the judgment and decree of the 1st Additional Subordinate Judge, Muzaffarpur, reversing those of the 4th Additional Munsif of the same place.

(2.) The plaintiff instituted the present suit originally against defendants 1 and 2, -namely, Dasain Nonia and his son Chaturbhuj Nonia for declaration of his title to the lands in suit and for confirmation of possession of the same. The case of the plaintiff was that the land in suit appertained to the patti of Khan Saheb Mir Mehdi Hussain, Mutawalli of Waqf Estate, and the plaintiff took permanent settlement of the same at an annual rental of Rs. 5-10-0 under a registered kabuliat dated the 8th December, 1937. According to him, the landlord granted him a rent receipt as proof of the above settlement'. After the settlement the plaintiff was put in possession of the same by the Malik by fixing four boundary stone pillars. After coming in possession of the area settled, the plaintiff filled up a portion of it and constructed a tatti house on it and reared fish in the remaining area settled with him. He sublet the tatti house to one Saudagar Nonia. In the year 1944 defendant No. 1, Dasain Nonia, filed Small Cause Court suit No. 378 of 1944 against Saudagar for arrears of rent of the hut which had been originally constructed by the plaintiff on the allegation that the hut belonged to him, and that he had let out the same to Saudagar on a monthly rental. On the 19th December, 1944, the Small cause court suit was decreed. If, therefore, became necessary for the plaintiff to institute the present suit which was filed on the 27th March, 1945.

(3.) After about a year of the institution of the present suit the plaintiff got the plaint amended by impleading defendants 3 to 5 on the allegation that on the 23rd July, 1946, defendants 1 and 2 had executed a registered sale deed in favour of Lachhman Thakur and others in respect of 2 kathas of land out of plot Nos. 2788 and 2789, and the purchasers had forcibly constructed a hut on a portion of the suit land. The plaintiff got the relief portion of the plaint also amended to the effect that he be granted a decree for recovery of possession in case he be found to have been dispossessed during the pendency of the suit.