HARI SHANKAR LAL SAHU Vs. MTCHANDU URAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the plaintiffs against the decision of the learned Deputy Commissioner Subordinate Judge of Ranchi dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs which was brought for ejectment of the defendant from 4.55 acres of land in village Looiyo recorded in the revisional settlement record under khata No. 180. Defendant Chandu is the widow of one Manna Uraon, the son of Chanku Uraon, who was recorded in respect of this land in the cadastral survey record of 1910. The Land stands recorded as rent free nokrana in the name of Chanku in lieu of service and has been recorded as nokrana in the name of the defendant in the revisional survey. Chanku died 8 or 9 years ago since then the defendant is in possession of the land enjoying the produce thereof without doing any work.

(2.) The plaintiffs case was that during his lifetime Chanku rendered services to the landlord as dhangar and that he enjoyed the land free of rent as a service tenure. The defendant, on the other hand, asserted that the entry in the Record of Rights describing the holding as nokrana was wrong and she claimed the land as a raiyati holding in which her husband Manna and her husband's father Chanku and before him their ancestors held as a raiyat since 1869 on payment of rent to the landlords; and in the alternative asserted that even if the holding is held to be nokrana she has obtained rights of a permanent tenant as a result of her being in possession continuously as a tenant from a very long time.

(3.) The final Court of fact has disbelieved the case of the defendant and found that the land in suit is nokrana as recorded both in the original and revisional settlements, that the entry in the Record of Rights is correct and that the defendant has failed to prove that the land is raiyati. As regards the case of the plaintiffs, the Courts below have found that the plaintiffs have not adduced any evidence to prove when this service tenure was created and what were the conditions attached to it. The Courts also found that the plaintiffs did not adduce any reliable evidence to prove that Chanku ever rendered any service to them. The Courts then took the view that as the defendant and her predecessors-in- interest have been in continuous cultivation of the land for over 12 years without paying any rent or rendering any services in lieu of rent to the plaintiffs or their ancestors the defendant has acquired a title over the land in suit by adverse possession and therefore dismissed the suit as being barred by limitation. Hence the appeal before me.