HAZI KHOSAL BISWAS Vs. RAM SUNDAR BHAGAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by defendant No. 1 (the son of original defendant No. 1) arises out of a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of 2.28 acres of land appertaining to revisional survey plots Nos. 3307 and 3527 of the revisional survey khata No. 903 of village Sukhasan and also for recovery of Rs. 248/10/- as compensation received by him (defendant) from the Land Acquisition Department in respect of 0.38 acres of land.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff was that he took settlement of 3 bighas 17 kathas and 19 dhoors of land bearing cadastral survey plot No. 582 along with other lands by means of a registered kabuliat dated 3-3-37 from the landlords. He further took rai-yati settlement of 12 bighas and odd kathas of land from the same landlords in the same village by means of another registered kabuliat dated 12th March, 1937 and came in possession of all the lands amalgamating them into one, holding on an amalgamated rental. Later on 0.38 acre of land out of cadastral survey plot No. 582 was acquired by the State of Bihar and compensation for the crops raised on that land was awarded to him. The remaining portion of that plot continued in possession of the plaintiff but during the recent revisional survey operation that portion came to be recorded in Nos. 3305, 3307 and 3527. Plot No. 3305 was recorded in the name of Harekisun Bhagat (son of the plaintiff) in the re-visional survey khatian but the remaining two plots 3307 and 3527 were wrongly recorded in the name of Hazi Ramjan Biswas the ancestor of defendants 1 to 1 (c) as his occupancy holding, while the names of defendants 2 and 3 were wrongly recorded as bataidars of plots 3307 and 3527 respectively in spite of objections by the plaintiff, Hazi Ramjan Biswas fraudulently realised the amount of compensation to the extent of Rs. 284/10/- in respect of 0.38 acres without the knowledge of the plaintiff. The revisional survey entry regarding plot Nos. 3307 and 3527 was incorrect and being emboldened by that entry the defendants dispossessed the plaintiff from those two plots in Baisakh 1365Fs. which gives a cause of action to the plaintiff for the suit giving rise to this appeal.

(3.) Hazi Ramjan Biswas, defendant No. 1 died during the pendency of the suit, but he had filed a written statement contending that cadastral survey plot number 582 was never settled with the plaintiff and the plaintiff never came in possession of that plot. According to defendant No. 1 this plot was settled with him by means of a registered kabuliat dated 16th April, 1937 by some of the co-sharer landlords, namely, Sant Saran Chaudhry and others and later on that settlement was approved by the remaining co-sharer landlords. Defendant No. 1 had paid rent to the landlords and he continued in possession throughout ever since the time of that settlement. He denied the title and possession of the plaintiff in respect of the land in suit. His further plea was that the entries in the revisional survey khatian with regard to plot Nos. 3307 and 3527 were absolutely correct. Defendants 2 and 3 as well filed a written statement supporting the case of defendant No. 1 and these defendants claimed to be the bataidars of those two plots.