LAWS(PAT)-1979-5-20

CHANDRA SHEKHAR SINGH Vs. RAMLAKHAN SINGH

Decided On May 01, 1979
CHANDRA SHEKHAR SINGH Appellant
V/S
RAMLAKHAN SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 4 (c) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (Bihar Act No. 22 of 1956) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The prayer made by the appellants who are some of the defendants in the action is to the effect that this appeal as well as the suit in respect of Schedule 1 properties should be held to have abated under the provisions of Section 4 (c) of the Act.

(2.) Admitted facts are these. The sole plaintiff, who is respondent No. 1, instituted Title Suit No. 262 of 1973 on 18-1-1972 in the Court of learned Subordinate Judge, Jehanabad. The reliefs sought in the suit were for a declaration of title, recovery of possession and mesne profits in respect of properties set out fully in Schedules 1 and 2 of the plaint. Admittedly the suit was decreed in respect of Schedule 2 properties on the basis of compromise with the consent of the parties concerned. The appellants were not concerned so far as Schedule 2 properties were concerned. The subject-matter of this appeal, therefore, does not embrace Schedule 2 properties and so far as this appeal is concerned, we are not in seisin of the matter relating to Schedule 2 properties. The application under Section 4 (c) of the Act therefore, it is obvious, must be considered to relate only to the properties covered by Schedule 1 to the plaint.

(3.) As already stated earlier, the suit was instituted on 18-l-1972. During the pendency of the suit, admittedly again a notification under Section 3 of the Act was issued on 11-9-75 covering Schedule 1 properties. The suit has been decreed on 27-9-75, i.e. while the proceedings under the Act had already commenced in respect of Schedule 1 properties. It is in this background that while pressing the application under Section 4 (c) of the Act learned counsel for the appellants Mr. Lakshman Saran Sinha makes a prayer that this Court should hold that the suit itself in relation to Schedule T properties has abated under the provisions of Section 4 (c) of the Act.