NAGESHWAR RAM Vs. NARAYAN MAHTO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiffs are the appellants/appellants. They had filed suit, seeking declaration of their right, title and possession over the land, appertaining to Khata No. 3, Plot No. 120, area 22 decimals; Plot No. 121, area 3 decimals; and Plot No. 165, area 3 decimals of village Bauraha, P.S. Meral, District Garhwa and for recovery of possession, If they are found dispossessed. Plaintiffs also prayed for a decree for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs title and possession.

(2.) Plaintiffs case was that the suit land was recorded in the name of Uddi Dusadh and Basu Dusadh in cadastral survey record of rights. Uddi Dusadh died leaving behind his son-Prasad Dusadh, There was a partition between Prasad Dusadh and Basu Dusadh and the suit land was partitioned In equal share, Prasad Dusadh died leaving behind his daughter-Punla, who was born out of the wedlock of first wife-Subhagla Devi, Prasad Dusadh was re-married to Sanichari Dusadhin after the death of Subhagla Devi, After the death of Prasad Dusadh, Sanichari Dusadhin left the village and re-married with to Beni Dusadh, Punla remained the only successor of Prasad Dusadh. She has been in physical cultivating possession of the suit land. The defendants have absolutely no right, title and possession over the suit land. However, the defendants tried to dispossess the plaintiffs therefrom by use of force. The dispute led to a proceeding under Section 144 Cr. P.C. In the said proceeding, for the first time, the defendants claimed that they have got the suit land In exchange. The said land was given by Basu Dusadh and Sanichari Dusadhin to Begani Mahatmain in lieu of 5 Kathas land of Begani Mahtoin Plot No. 30 given to them. Subsequently, Begani Mahatowain settled the said land in exchange, to Indrajit Mahto and Laichu Mahto In the year 1948. The said settlement was followed by rent receipts. The settlees-Indrajit Mahto and Laichu Mahto sold the said land to one BlpatMahto by virture of registered Sale Deed No. 3171 dated 8th June, 1976. The said purchaser got his name mutated In revenue record. The plaintiffs claimed that the transactions were illegal, Invalid and inoperative, The defendants have not acquired any right title by the said transaction. The plaintiffs have valid right, title and possession and are entitled to the reliefs prayed for.

(3.) The defendants contested the suit by filing written statement. It was, inter alia, stated that though Punia was the only daughter of Prasadh Dusadh, it is false to state that Subhagia was the first wife of Prasad Dusadh and the mother of Punia and Sanichari was the second wife of Prasad Dusadh. As a matter of fact, Sanichari Dusadhin was the only wife of Prasad Dusadh and she was mother of Punla. Prasad Dusadh died in 1940 and Sanichari Dusadhin never re-married nor left the family of Prasad Dusadh. After the death of Prasad Dusadh, Sanichari Dusadhin succeeded him and inherited his property. She exchanged the suit land for the land of the then landlord Begani Mahatmain and in lieu of the suit land got another land. The father of the defendants is the subsequent bona fide purchaser. He acquired valid right, title by virtue of the sale deed. His name was mutated by the revenue authority. Father of the defendants, thereafter, constructed a residential house and a Pucca well over the suit land and continued in peaceful possession thereof till his death. After the death of their father, Defendant nos. 1 to 5 Inherited the property and have been In peaceful physical possession thereof, The plaintiffs have fabricated a story and have Instituted a frivolous suit, The same is liable to be dismissed.