LEDA MAHATO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This letters patent appeal has been preferred by plaintiff -appellant, Leda Mahato against the appellate order and judgment dated 14.3.1997 passed by the learned single Judge in Appeal from the Original Decree No. 225 of 1995 (R). The learned single Judge dismissed the first appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 30th August, 1995/11th September, 1995 passed by learned sub -Judge Ist, Dhanbad in Title Suit No. 26/88.

(2.) The sole plaintiff, Leda Mahato brought the suit in question against the defendant for declaration of his permanent raiyati right in the tank and its ridge forming part of the suit land. The tank is commonly known as Purana Bandh situated in Mauza Telmocha bearing plot No. 1411 area 6.78 acres and plot No. 1413 area 52 decimals having total area 7.30 acres appertaining to Khata No. 133.

(3.) The case of plaintiff -appellant was that the tank Purana Bandh was excavated by his ancestors for the purpose of irrigating the paddy fields contiguous to the aforesaid tank and remained in peaceful possession of the plaintiff. Moti Mahato, father of plaintiff and his co -sharers, Smt. Omia Mahato in and Dandu Mahato inherited the suit property on the death of their ancestors and were in peaceful possession of the suit tank, irrigating paddy fields, repairing the ridge of the tank and desilting the bed of the tank, growing vegetables on the various ridges and also exercising other acts of possession. It was pleaded that during the last survey settlement operation, the suit tank was wrongly included in the Gairbad Khatian No. 33 of the landlord of Mauza Telocho although the aforesaid tank and its ridge was in peaceful possession of his ancestor and co -sharers as evident from irrigation records of right. The aforesaid mistake of wrong entry of the suit tank in Gairbad Khatian No. 33 when detected, it was brought to the notice of the landlord, namely, Raj Kumar Thakur Ram Bahadur Singh, who by deed of relinquishment dated 26th June, 1929 rectified the mistake and released the tank in favour of the father of the plaintiff and other two co -sharers from Gairbad Khatian No. 33 reserving annual rent of Rs. 5/ - more for the tank and its ridge in question. Accordingly, Moti Mahato, father of plaintiff -appellant used to pay rent to the landlord, who granted receipts and Moti Mahato as also plaintiff both remained in peaceful possession of the suit land.