MOSSOMAT SARDA Vs. HARENDRA NARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellants, who have filed this Second Appeal against the judgment of affirmance.

(2.) TITLE Suit No. 3820 of 1964 was filed by the plaintiff -respondents for declaration of title over the suit land and also for a direction that the entries in revisional survey khatiyan in the names of the defendant first and second party with respect to the suit land were wrong. The said suit was decreed by the learned Munsif, Araria, by judgment and decree dated 11.1.1989, against which the defendants filed Title Appeal No. 13 of 1989 (10 of 1996), which was dismissed by the learned 4th Additional District Judge, Purnia vide his judgment and decree dated 18.3.1997, which are under challenge in the instant Second Appeal.

(3.) LEARNED courts below have also found that the order dated 21.8.1959 (Ext. 'D') passed by the learned Munsif, Araria, in Suit No. 448/106 of 1956 was ex parte order in which the plaintiffs of the instant suit were not even parties and the said order was passed only on the basis of oral plea of the defendant -appellants and hence the said ex parte order was not binding on the plaintiffs and the defendant -appellants cannot take any advantage of the said order. The learned courts below have also found that two municipal receipts and two Government receipts had been produced by the defendant -appellants but the said receipts were obtained during the pendency of the suit and there was no other material to prove even the possession of the defendant - appellants. In the said circumstances, both the courts below came to the specific finding that the defendant -appellants have completely failed to prove their title and possession over the suit land, whereas, the plaintiff -respondents had been able to prove their right, title and possession on the basis of legal and admissible documents including the deeds of title.