DASRATH TELI Vs. RAM DAS THAKURAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendants appeal against concurrent decrees of the Courts below decreeing the plaintiff's claim in part for the removal of certain constructions unlawfully made by the defendants and possession of the sites thereof. The plaintiff was the zamindar of the village of Dhobauli and he alleged that the defendants had built two new osaras, one to the east and one to the south of their house and further had built a new charan and certain other constructions also to the south of their house. It was the plaintiff's case that these constructions were recent; and had been made in the month of Jeth 1932. The defendants contested the suit and pleaded that osaras in question in their present form had existed at least for fourteen years and that previous to them there had been older osaras on the same sites. It was also pleaded that the charan and other constructions had been on the land for a long time and that, in any event, the land south of the house was the sehan land of the defendants upon which they could lawfully make the constructions complained of.

(2.) The learned Munsif decreed the plaintiff's claim with regard to all the constructions except the southern osara. With itegard to this construction, the learned Munsif was of opinion that it was old and that the plaintiff had a title to it by over 12 years adverse possession. He held however that the other constructions were recent and that the plaintiff was entitled to demolition of the same and possession of the sites. On appeal, the learned civil Judge upheld the findings of the learned Munsif. The case first came before me on 16 March 1937 and it appeared to me that certain essential facts had not been found. I accordingly framed three issues for decision by the lower Appellate Court, namely: (1) Whether the southern osara was built upon the defendants sehan land" (2) Whether the eastern osara was built on the defendants sehan land" (3) Whether the other constructions complained of or any of them were built on the defendants sehan land.

(3.) The lower Appellate Court has now re-turned its findings and has held: (1) That the southern osara was not built upon the defendants sehan land but upon the land which was part and parcel of their own house; (2) that the eastern osara was built on the defendants sehan land; (3) that the other constructions complained of were built on parti land and not on the defendants sehan land.