GULAB RAM Vs. GANAURI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against the order passed by the 2nd Addl. District Judge, Palamau in Title Appeal No. 3 of 1981 holding that the appeal has been abated as a whole as the heirs of appellant No. 2, Ramadhin Ram had not been brought on record in time and the appeal had abated not only against the appellant No. 2 but against all the appellants as right to appeal did not survive in favour of the other appellants as the decree was an indivisible one passed by the Court below.

(2.) The facts are required to be reiterated briefly for deciding the issue in this appeal. Title Suit No. 12 of 1968 was filed by the plaintiffs-respondents for declaration of their title and recovery of possession on the plea that the grandfather of the plaintiffs, Gokul Sah purchased the suit land vide registered sale deed dated 2.5.1889 giving specific boundaries. The suit land was a Bari land and the vendor Anant was in continuous possession of the suit land and then they sold it to the predecessors of the plaintiffs. But it was wrongly recorded as bakast land of the ex-landlord but it really remained as Chhaparbandi land of Gokul Sah, grand father of the plaintiffs in the Sheista of the ex-landlord, who always accepted rents. Defendants, on the other hand, contended that the land was Bakast land of the ex-landlord and it was correctly recorded in the Survey Record of Rights. The suit land was never purchased by the grandfather of the plaintiffs. According to the defendants, their father, Babulal was a good Compounder and used to treat the exlandlord, Babu Amar Dayal Singh and out of love and affection, he orally settled in chhaparbandi the suit land to the predecessor Of the defendant, Babulal and thus the defendants came in possession.

(3.) So the question remains regarding the position whether the lands were Bakast land of the ex-landlord or not. The suit was decreed originally and against that judgment and decree, Title Appeal No. 3 of 1981 was preferred by the defendants-appellants. The appeal was once allowed and against such allowance of the appeal, the plaintiff respondents preferred Second Appeal No. 14 of 1983 (R) before this Court which was accordingly allowed after hearing both the parties and the case was remanded to the Ist appellate Court for proceeding according to the law in the light of the observations made in the second appeal.