BHANGI BHAGAT Vs. RAMAYAN DUBEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant fourth party preferred the second appeal before this Court. The plaintiff's filed the suit for a declaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of the suit land. Plaintiff No. 1 was Suraj Dubey, son of Jagdeo Dubey, Plaintiff No. 2 was son of Suraj Dubey. The admitted case of the parties is --

(2.) The suit was contested by defendant fourth party on the ground that the suit was hit by Section 27(1) of the Bihar & Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914. In other words, the claim of defendant fourth party is that such suit is not maintainable in view of Section 27(1) of the said Act.

(3.) The short point for consideration in this appeal is whether the suit is filed by the plaintiffs is hit by Section 27(1) of the Bihar & Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) ? In the present suit the plaintiffs claimed that the suit property was purchased in the benami name of Amar Missir. Such a suit is prohibited by the provision of Section 27(1) of the Act. It is relevant to quote Sub-section (1) of Section 27 of the Act. No suit shall be maintained, against any person claiming title under a purchase certified by the Certificate Officer is such manner as may be prescribed, on the ground that the purchase was made on behalf of the plaintiff or on behalf of some one through whom the plaintiff claims. Section 27(1) of the Act provides that no suit shall be maintained against the certified purchaser and any person claiming title under a purchase certified by the Certificate Officer. It is, therefore, clear that the protection can be claimed not only by the real purchaser but also by any one claiming through him. In the present case, the plaintiffs brought the suit on the ground that the pre-decessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs was the real purchaser and the purchase was made in the benami name of Amar Missir. In my opinion, Section 27(1) of the Act prohibits such suit. In this view of the matter, I hold that the present suit filed by the plaintiffs was hit by Section 27(1) of the Act and defendant fourth party was protected by it.