RAM NARESH SINGH @ RAM NARESH PRASAD AND OTHERS Vs. NATHUN CHOUDHARY @ NATHUNI CHAUDHARY SON OF LATE SANICHAR PASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CAVThis appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs/ appellants against the order dated 12.08.2010 and decree dated 25.08.2010 passed by the learned Sub-Judge 7th, Gaya in Title suit no. 300/09/363/09, by which and where under he rejected the plaint of the plaintiffs/ appellants under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code on the ground that the above stated suit is barred by res-judicata as well as the above stated suit does not disclose any cause of action.

(2.) The brief facts are that the plaintiffs/ appellants filed above stated Title suit against sole respondent/ defendant for declaration of their title and recovery of possession of suit land and also for issuance of permanent injunction restraining the respondent/ defendant not to interfere into their peaceful possession over the disputed land. The plaintiffs/ appellants claimed that C.S. Khata no. 183 pertaining to C.S. plot No. 225 having an area of 1.04 acres was recorded in the cadastral survey records of right in the name of Baijnath Singh, who happened to be great grandfather of plaintiffs/ appellants and one Sanichar Pasi, who happened to be father of sole defendant/ respondent was recorded as Sikmi Raiyat over the above stated land. The further case of the plaintiffs/ appellants is that in the year 1946 some dispute arose between Babu Sri Ram Singh, who happened to be descendant of Baijnath Singh with the above stated Sanichar Pasi in respect of the suit land and a proceeding under section 144 was initiated. As a result whereof the aforesaid Sanichar Pasi was dispossessed from the suit land on 01.04.1946. Subsequently, the above stated Sanichar Pasi filed Title suit no. 62/47 against Sri Ram Singh and others for declaration of his title and recovery of possession over the suit lands. The aforesaid Title suit was decreed and accordingly, the Sanichar Pasi was declared as Sikmidar. The above stated Sanichar Pasi also filed an application for recovery of means profit and the aforesaid petition was allowed and grandfather of the plaintiff was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 231 to Sanichar Pasi but the grandfather of the plaintiff failed to deposit the aforesaid amount as a result whereof Sanichar Pasi filed Execution Case No. 102 of 1948. In the aforesaid Execution Case No. 102 of 1948, the suit land was sold in auction and the same was purchased by one Jamuna Singh. The aforesaid Jamuna Singh filed Rent Suit No. 01 of 1960 against Sanichar Pasi which was decreed vide order dated 16.02.1961 and, accordingly, Sanichar Pasi started paying rent of the suit land to the above stated Jamuna Singh. Subsequently, the aforesaid Jamuna Singh sold the suit land to the father of plaintiffs by Executing registered sale deed 21.09.1963 and, accordingly, father of plaintiff became Kaiyamai Raiyat of the aforesaid disputed lands. The aforesaid Sanichar Pasi died in the year 1966 leaving behind defendant as his sole legal heir but since the Sikmidar Raiyat was not inheritable, the father of plaintiff became absolute owner of the suit land. It is further pleaded by the plaintiffs/ appellants that under Municipal Survey of the suit land, the purcha of the suit land was wrongly prepared in the name of respondent/ defendant against which the father of plaintiffs/ appellants filed objection under section 9 of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Survey Act. However, the above stated dispute went up to this Court when the plaintiffs/ appellants filed CWJC No. 7296 of 2000. In the meantime, the defendant/ respondent filed a petition under section 48B of the B.T. Act before Circle Officer Manpur, Gaya for declaration of his Rayati right over the suit land but his prayer was rejected up to Board of Revenue and, thereafter, defendant/ respondent filed CWJC No. 11394 of 2001. The above stated CWJC No. 11394 of 2001 was disposed of by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.09.2008 deserving that the orders passed by Revenue authorities shall be subject to the final order passed in CWJC No. 7296 of 2000. However, the above stated CWJC No. 7296 of 2000 was dismissed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.01.2009 observing that the dismissal of the writ application would not stand in the way of writ petitioner to seek his remedy for any fresh cause of action before the appropriate civil court. After dismissal of the aforesaid writ petitions, the plaintiffs/ appellants filed the above stated Title suit when the defendant/ respondent refused to handover vacant possession of the suit land.

(3.) In the above stated suit, the sole defendant/ respondent appeared and filed his written statement and, thereafter, also a petition under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code making prayer for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit does not disclose any cause of action and is barred by res-judicata.