(1.) The suit out of which the present appeal arises was instituted by the present Respondent No. 1 for recovery of possession of 4.78 acres of land appertaining to Khata nos. 1. 15 and 3 of village Rampur, Kishunpur, Aiaipur alias Kathanpura in the district of Patna with a further prayer for recovery of past mesne profits amounting to Rupees 3871/10/- as well as future mesne profits. There was an alternative prayer for recovery of a sum of Rs. 3000/- being the amount for which the disputed property had been mortgaged in favour of the plaintiff along with some other properties and a further sum of Rs. 769/8/- as interest thereon.
(2.) According to the admitted case of the parties, defendant No. 1 Bibi Salma was the proprietress of tauzi No. 10106 to which the aforesaid lands appertained and she had executed a zarpeshgi deed in favour of the plaintiff on 29-1-1943 with respect to three annas and odd share in this tauzi. After execution of this mortgage deed, the plaintiff duly came into possession of the mortgaged property along with the aforesaid lands which were bakasht lands. The plaintiff's case further was that in the year 1361 (sic) fasli, he had duly grown paddy on these lands as in the previous years, but subsequently in Magh 1352 fasti, the defendants in collusion with one another forcibly cut away the paddy crops grown on these lands and thereby he was dispossessed from these lands. It may also be mentioned here that defendants 2 and 3 are the sons of defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 4 was alleged to be the Mokhtaram of defendant No. 1 and the original defendant No. 5 Ram Kishun Dusadh was alleged to be a Gorait of defendant No. 1 and defendants 6 and 7 are sons of original defendant No. 5. The remaining defendant, that is, defendant No. 8 is not alleged to have any direct connection with the other defendants but he is a resident of village Kathanpura where the lands are situate. On the above allegation regarding dispossession of the plaintiff from the aforesaid bakasht lands, the aforesaid suit was instituted claiming the reliefs already referred to above.
(3.) Two separate written statements were filed in the suit by defendants 1 to 3 and defendant No. 6 respectively. Defendants 1 to 3 totally denied the allegation of the plaintiff about the cutting away of the paddy of the aforesaid lands by them in collusion with the other defendants in Magh 1352 fasli and about the alleged dispossession of the plaintiff from these lands. According to them, defendants 2nd and 3rd parties, that is, defendants 5 to 8 are men of the plaintiff himself and the allegations of the plaintiff regarding cutting away of the paddy crops and dispossession are totally false and the lands were still in possession of the plaintiff himself. The case of defendant No. 6, on the other hand, was that the lands in suit were never in possession of the plaintiff and he himself claimed to be in possession of a portion of some of these plots by virtue of alleged settlement with and purchases by his father Ram Kishun Dusadh. It appears, however, that although defendant No. 6 had filed written statement he gave up contest in the suit while the hearing was proceeding and, thereafter, the same was contested by defendants 1 to 3 alone.