ROHAN KUMAR Vs. LACHHUMAN PATHAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has been filed by defendants 1 and 2 in a suit filed for the declaration of the title of the plaintiffs and for recovery of possession of the lands described in Schedule-B to the plaint. It is mentioned in the plaint that in case the relief regarding Schedule-B properties be not permissible in law, a decree for partition of the lands of Plots Nos. 41, 85, 250, 330, 337 and 628 of Jote No. 14 of village Bhaiyadih in the District of Santhal Parganas with the total area of 10.59 acres be passed,

(2.) According to the plaintiffs' case, one Tarachand left behind two sons, Meghlal and Chintamani. Meghlal had a son Madhusudan and his wife was Khema. They had a daughter Lakshmi. Defendants 3 and 4 were sons of Lakshmi. Defendant No. 4 has since died. Chintamani had two sons Kala and Ramlal. Kala's son Gonu had a son Sukha, who died in 1948. The plaintiffs are the sons and grandsons of Sukha. Ramlal's only son was Mukund who died in 1940 leaving behind his widow Mossamat Jago. The lady also died in 1951. The lands in suit were recorded in the survey records in the names of Mukund and Khema. The plaintiffs further alleged that there was a partition between the two owners half and half and Schedule-B properties were allotted to Mukund's share. On his death Jago Kuer came in possession and remained so till her lifetime. After her death the plaintiffs being the nearest reversioners inherited to the estate of Mu-kund including the Schedule-B properties. Defendants 1 and 2 who claimed to be settlees of the lands raised some dispute and dispossessed the plaintiffs after a decision in Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(3.) The defence of defendants 1 and 2, who are defendants first party is that Chintamani had only one son Ramlal and Kala was not related to Mukund. In this way the title of the plaintiffs is challenged. It is further asserted that defendants 1 and 2 got a settlement of the lands from Mossamat Jago and remained in possession. There was some quarrel with defendants 3 and 4 which was ultimately settled in favour of defendants first party. The plaintiffs are said to have no locus standi to maintain the suit.