TETARI DEVI Vs. SUDARSHAN PANDIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants in Title Suit No. 13 of 1999, which came to be decreed in favour of the plaintiffs by learned Munsif Sadar, Motihari, are the appellants herein, as the said judgment and decree, dtd. 11/11/2004, has been affirmed by the learned 4th Additional District Judge, East Champaran, Motihari, by judgment and decree, dtd. 21/12/2009, passed in Title Appeal No. 111 of 2004/15 of 2009.

(2.) The suit was filed for declaration of title and recovery of possession over the suit property as described in Schedule-II of the plaint. The plaintiffs' case was that one Manbharan Pandit was recorded as tenant of Plot Nos. 1920 and 1921 under khata No. 119 of village Barahiya Tola Rajpur, who died after revisional survey operation, leaving behind is only son Dahaur Pandit. Dahaur Pandit died leaving behind his two sons, namely, Deonath Pandit and Basudeo Pandit. It was the case of the plaintiff that his father Amichandra Pandit had purchased the suit property through registered sale-deed, dtd. 6/2/1966, for consideration and, upon the death of Amichandra Pandit, the plaintiffs acquired title and possession over the suit property. With the case that the defendants dispossessed the plaintiffs on 25/12/1988 and 8/1/1999, they filed the suit for relief as noted above.

(3.) The appellants-defendants appeared in the suit proceeding and contested the suit by filing written statement. It was their common case that the said Manbharan Pandit, the recorded tenant, had abandoned his tenancy and had shifted to some other village leading to the landlord taking over the land in question. The suit land remained in khas possession of the khewatdar, which was subsequently orally settled in favour of one Tapeshwar Pandit, who was put in possession over the suit property. It was further case of the defendants that said Tapeshwar Pandit subsequently executed a sale deed in respect of suit Plot Nos. 1920 and 1921, dtd. 24/2/1981 in favour of Shrwan Pandit and put defendant No.2 in possession and accordingly defendants were rightfully coming in possession over the suit property after having acquired title over the same.