TARINI MARANDI Vs. LAKSHMI MAHTO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision application is directed against the. order dated 6.12.97 passed by Sub -judge -III. Deoghar in Title Suit No. 185 of 1997 whereby and where -under the court below rejected the petition filed by the defendants petitioners challenging the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit and also the maintainability of the suit.

(2.) The facts of the case lie in a narrow carnpass. The plaintiffs filed the aforementioned suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing their possession over the suit land. The plaintiffs case is that in village Bara Markhi there is a jungle plot. In settlement plot No. 101/992 measuring 63.50 acres in survey khatian out of which 31.55 acres is out side the demarcation area of the forest. There was a settlement case No. 132/70 -71 in the court of Sub -Divisional Officer which was decided by order dated 31 10.74 by the then Sub -Divisional Officer. Deoghar and the said order of settlement was made on the basis of compromise It is alleged that the land which was allotted in the name of settlees were in their possession as such no delivery of possession was effected. The defendants filed a petition before the Sub -divisional Officer for review of the order dated 21.10.74 which was numbered as Settlement Case No. 63 of 80 -81 and settlement case No. 172/91 -92. The review petition of the defendants were allowed and the Sub -divisional officer recommended for settlement of the land as per the report of the Circle Officer, Madhupur It appears that there was an appeal against the said order of the Sub -Divisional Officer Madhupur before the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar being Revenue Appeal No. 90/96 -97. The plaintiffs case is that the order of the Sub -divisional Officer Madhupur reviewing the earlier order dated 21.10.74 without seeking permission of the Deputy Commissioner is illegal and without jurisdiction and void under the law. The Deputy Commissioner alleged to have erroneously ordered for settlement of the land vide order dated 24.2.97 ignoring the earlier order dated 21.10.74. The defendants being emboldened by the order dated 24.2.97 started creating trouble and disturbing peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the land which was settled with them on the basis of compromise petition filed before the Sub -divisional Officer, Deoghar. The plaintiffs, therefore, seek declaration of their right title and interest over the suit land and also confirmation of possession.

(3.) The defendants appeared in the suit and filed a petition praying therein to dismiss the suit as the same is not maintainable. The said application was opposed by the plaintiffs by filing rejoinder. The Court below after hearing the parties rejected the petition filed by the defendants petitioners in terms of the impugned order holding that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is not hit by any of the Provisions of Santal Parganas Tenancy Act, The Court below further held that the question of jurisdiction raised by the defendants is mixed question of law and fact and therefore, the same cannot be decided at the initial stage.