ANJANI KUMAR VISHWAKARMA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant.The suit was preferred for declaration of right, title and interest and also for confirmation of possession of the plaintiff in respect of the settlement of parti land made by the village Munda of the village Dumbisai in respect of the land described at the foot of the plaint. The land in question was situated within Chaibasa Municipality, ward no. 5, Mohalla Tungri, P.O. & P.S. Chaibasa, District Singhbhum West. The disputed land was recorded in the name of the plaintiff as raiyat in the survey settlement pertaining to the year 1973. Previously it was recorded in the name of his grand father. The claim of the plaintiff was that the land in question pertaining to plot no. 667 under khata no. 2 having estate no. 697 of village Dumbisai, thana no. 663 was settled in the name of his grand father.

(2.) THE suit was contested by the respondent. It was contended on behalf of the defendant that the suit was not maintainable both in law as well as on facts, the suit is vaxatious in nature and filed with a wrong intention. The suit as preferred is full of suppression of fact and distortion of the correct version. The plaintiff failed to sign the plaint and verify it. The suit is grossly undervalued. The value of the suit was suggested at the minimum to be four lakhs and, therefore, it is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court. The description of the suit property was also challenged as detailed in schedule -1. Plaintiff is not a raiyat of village Dumbisai. He has not been able to furnish any particular of the land allegedly held by him.

(3.) THE most important question is that whether the suit is barred by law of limitation or not. The relief claimed includes a prayer for a decree for declaration to the effect that the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum West and confirmation of the said order by the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division and Board of Revenue, Jharkhand are not in accordance with law and the Court was of the view that the claim is barred by limitation. The claim of the appellant is on the basis of a deed of settlement Exhibit -1 as well as adverse possession.