SASTHI PADO SEKHAR Vs. ANANDI CHAUDHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the plaintiff and defendant No. 4 arises out of a suit for declaration of the plaintiff's raiyati rights over 5.31 acres of lands comprised of eight plots appertaining to khata No. 10 of village Babhani, fully described in the schedule to the plaint and for confirmation of possession or for recovery of possession thereof. The suit was decreed by the trial Court but was dismissed by the lower appellate Court.

(2.) According to the plaintiff's case, Tikait Birendra Narayan Singh, the proprietor of village Babhani, settled under a registered patta, dated the 27th February 1947 about 31.13 acres of land accertaining to khata No. 10 and other khatas of village Babhani in permanent raiyati rights with his daughter Shrimati Churamani Kumari, defendant No. 4, who came into possession of the lands so settled with her. On the 18th February 1957. under a registered sale-deed the aforesaid Shrimati Churamani Kumari sold the suit lands as well as other lands to the plaintiff. When the plaintiff applied for mutation of his name, defendant No. 1 filed objections in regard to the suit lands. The plaintiff's application for mutation was dismissed by the Anchal Adhikari, and his appeal to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Giridih, was also unsuccessful. This having cast a cloud on his title, he filed the title suit for the aforesaid reliefs.

(3.) The suit was contested by defendants Nos. 1 to 3 only. Defendant No. 4, the vendor of the plaintiff, supported the plaintiff's case. The case of the contesting defendants was that the suit lands had been settled with defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in raiyati rights by virtue of a hukumnama on the 1st of January 1945 by Tikait Birendra Narayan Singh, who had put them in possession of the same and that they were in possession of the lands ever since then. It was further pleaded on their behalf that the plaintiff was not a resident of village Babhani or of any village within the police station of Dhanwar or within the district of Hazaribagh in the year 1957 or on the date of the execution of the sale-deed, dated the 18th February 1957 and, as such, the sale-deed, dated the 18th February 1957 in favour of the plaintiff was in contravention of the provisions of Section 46 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908, and, accordingly the plaintiff acquired no title and right over the suit lands. Their further case was that neither Shrimati Churamani Kumari nor the plaintiff was at any time in possession of the suit lands.