PARMESHWARI DEVI Vs. KHUSALI MANDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Second Appeal by the Plaintiffs, and the question for consideration is whether the respondents have acquired tenancy rights in the disputed lands by prescription.

(2.) The disputed lands admittedly belonged to Kesho Jha and are situate in village Ramudih Bariarpur. He had lands also in two other villages, namely, Rohini and Rupsagar. He died about 25 years ago leaving him surviving his son Bhubaneshwar Jha and his widow Jamuna Debya. Bhubaneshwar also died soon thereafter leaving behind him three daughters and his widow Sansar Debya. In the Reyisional Survey and Settlement the villages Rohini and Rupsagar were recorded in the name of Sansar Debya, while the village Ramudih Bariarpur, where the disputed lands lie, was recorded in the name of" Jamuna Debya. Sansar Debya died in 1941 and Jamuna Debya died in 1942. The present action was commenced by the daughters of Bhubaneshwar on 13-2-1948. They claimed the disputed properties by inheritance. They alleged that on the death of Bhubaneshwar his widow Sansar Debya was in possession of the entire family properties situate in the three villages aforesaid, that the name of Jamuna Debya was recorded in respect of the village Ramudih Bariarpur by mistake and that notwithstanding this wrong entry the possession remained with Sansar Debya. Their further case was that the disputed lands were settled with the defendants on bhaoli batai in the year 1942-43 for one year and this settlement was renewed from year to year until 1945; In 1945 they wanted to cultivate the lands khas through their servants. But it is alleged, the defendants removed the crops of the disputed lands in November 1945, which culminated in a criminal case against the defendants who were eventually acquitted. The plaintiffs sought the eviction of the defendants on the ground that since after the decision of the criminal case they were trespassers and the plain-tiffs were entitled to enter upon the lands as the defendants had no valid title to retain possession. They also claimed mesne profits for one year prior to the institution of the suit.

(3.) The defendants admitted that they were holding the lands as tenants but denied that the tenancy was bhaoli batai and alleged that they were paying cash rents to the plaintiffs. They further alleged that they were in possession of the disputed lands since after the Revisional Settlement. Their alternative defence was that they had acquired title to the disputed lands by adverse possession for upwards of twelve years.