TIKAIT SRINIBAS HUKUM SINGH DEO Vs. DEORAM GANJHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the plaintiff who is aggrieved by the concurrent decisions of the Courts below by which they have dismissed his suit which was instituted for recovery of possession of 124 acres of land in village Khandanishan. The facts are now no longer in dispute. The plaintiff is the proprietor of the Biru estate in the district of Ranchi. Village Khandanishan is a part of that estate. On 14 January 1882, the then Raja, the great grandfather of the plaintiff, executed a registered patta in respect of the village in favour of Thuntha Ram Ganjhu and his son Dangu alias Mahendra as jagir hinheyati, that is to say a life grant, on receipt of a nazarana of Rs. 100 and an annual payment of Rs. 25-5-0 besides cess.

(2.) It is important to state here that in this document it is recited thatten years before this the village had been let out to the gungles and they made the lands cultivable. On 13 August 1882, Thutha Ram for self and on behalf of his minor son Mahender sold the village to Hira Singh, who was the son of Raja Hari Ram Singh. After the sale deed, Ex. 6, the vendors reserved the lands now in dispute for themselves--it has been found by the Courts below that these were the lands which were reclaimed by the grantees during the ten years before the grant of 1882.

(3.) In 1897 the estate was taken charge of by the manager of the encumbered estates. At that time Damar Singh, son of Hira Singh and grandfather of defendant 1, claimed his right to the village on the basis of the sale deed in his favour of August, 1882 just referred to above. This right was recognised by the manager and the village, therefore, remained in possession of Damar Singh and thereafter in the possession of his son Jagatpal Singh. In the survey record of rights prepared in the year 1908 khewat No. 2, was recorded in the name of the Biru estate, but khewat No. 3 was recorded in the name of Jagatpal Singh, whose estate was also then under the manager of the encumbered estates. The remarks column contains these remarks: "The interest was mukarari, not resumable and no patta has been produced." The revisional survey record of rights was finally published in the year 1933 in which again khewat No. 2 was recorded in the name the Biru estate while khewat No. 3 was recorded in the name of defendant 1 with a note to the same effect that the mukarari was not resumable and there was no patta. On these allegations the plaintiff sought to recover possession from defendant 1.