ATAUR RAHMAN ALIAS MOHD SULI Vs. SOMARI ORAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 28.6.91 passed by a learned Single Judge in F.A. No. 553/73(R), whereby the learned Judge has allowed the appeal in part and dismissed the suit in question of Schedule B property.

(2.) The plaintiff -appellant instituted Title Suit No. 50/67 for declaration of his title in respect of the lands described in Schedules A and B of the plaint and also for a decree for confirmation of possession and in the alternative for recovery of possession of the said properties.

(3.) The plaintiffs case in brief is that one Peer Mohammad, the deceased father of the plaintiff and Dil Mohammad were the full brothers and they were the raiyats in respect of the land of Khata No. 121 of village Argora fully described in Schedule A of the plaint and their names were recorded in the survey records of right. The plaintiffs further case is that his uncle Dil Mohammad was recorded in respect of Sikmi Khata No. 11 of the said village and those lands have been described in Schedule B of the plaint. The plaintiffs further case is that his father and uncle died leaving behind the plaintiff as their only heir who succeeded and came in possession of the entire Schedules A and B properties. It is stated that Peer Mohammad and Dil mohammad gave schedule B land to the defendants for cultivation on their behalf and he was cultivating the land as Adhbataidar. After vesting the plaintiff filed a petition for mutation of his name in respect of the entire suit land. The defendant filed objection and claimed both these land as purchaser. However, the Additional Collector passed order fixing the rent of Schedule A land in the name of the plaintiff and of Schedule B land in the name of the defendants. The plaintiffs case is that the order passed by the Additional Collector in respect of Schedule B land is absolutely illegal and against the law. It is further stated that taking advantage of the order passed by the Additional Collector the defendants started claiming Schedule B land and also trying to dispossess the plaintiff from Schedule A land. The defendants contested the suit by filing written statement denying and disputing the relationship between the plaintiff and the recorded tenant, Dil Mohammad and further denied that the plaintiff ever came in possession of Schedule A and B lands. The defendant's further case is that the suit lands have been sold to the defendants in 1949 and on the basis of purchase, the defendants have been continuing possession of the entire Schedule A and B land at their own right and thereby they perfected their title by adverse possession. It is further stated by the defendants that they had constructed a house on plot No. 2040 and have dug a well and living there for more than the statutory period of 12 years.