RAM KESHWAR MAHTON Vs. HARI CHARAN MAHTON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is by the defendants first party against a judgment of reversal decreeing the suit. The plaintiffs are the members of a joint family, and sued for declaration of title and recovery of possession after removal of certain encroachments said to have been made by the appellants on two plots of homestead land, one comprising 2 kathas 5 dhurs and the other comprising 16 dhurs immediately to the south thereof. Plot 1 was settled by the landlords on 22 September, 1925, by means of an unregistered patta, with a member of the plaintiffs family, Hari Narain, son of Jawahir Mahto, the then head of the family. This Hari Narain is since deceased, and his widow is defendant 19. Plot 2 was similarly settled by an unregistered patta on 24 March 1926 in the name of Hari Charan Mahton, plaintiff 1, who is son of Jawahir. The plaintiffs case was that actually both these settlements were made with the joint family, but the former was simply in the name of Hari Narain and the second in the name of Hari Charan.

(2.) On 15 March 1927, the landlords gave a similar unregistered patta for another 2 kathas 5 dhurs of land lying just to the north of the 2 kathas 5 dhurs already mentioned to one Shaikh Mohammad, and on 6 April 1939, defendants first party purchased this plot from Sheikh Mohammad. According to the plaintiffs, shortly afterwards defendants first party, the present appellants, began to construct a house on the plot settled with them, and while doing so made encroachments on both the plaintiffs plots. Shortly after this, on 10 January 1940, they took a kebala from defendant 19 Harinarain's widow, in respect of the 2 kathas 5 dhurs settled in the name of Hari Narain, and this kebala was taken in the name of defendant 16 said to be benamidar merely.

(3.) The defendants case was that the settlement of the 2 kathas 5 dhurs in 1925 was made with Hari Narain who was then separate from the rest of the plaintiffs family. It was a settlement exclusively with him, the land was inherited by his widow and consequently the defendants acquired a good title by their purchase from the widow in 1940. They further alleged that this plot of 2 kathas 5 dhurs, which they had purchased, included the 16 dhurs of which the plaintiffs subsequently took settlement in the name of Hari Charan.