JAMHIR ANSARI Vs. KETNA ORGAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal at the instance of plaintiff -appellant is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 16.3.1988 and 30.3.1988 passed in Title Appeal No. 9 of 1983/14 of 1983 by Shri B. N. Singh, 1st Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi whereby and whereunder the said appeal was dismissed affirming the judgment and decree dated 22.12.1982 and 10.1.1983 passed in Title Suit No. 202 of 1981/62 of 1982 by Shri Ram Nath, Additional Sub -Judge, Ranchi.

(2.) THE original plaintiff -appellant has died during the pendency of this appeal and her heir and legal representative stands substituted in this case.

(3.) THE case of the original plaintiff -appellant, in brief, is that the suit plot aforesaid was recorded in the Revisional Survey Records of Right in the name of her father Sheikh Shohabat as "Kaimi Adhbataidar" under Most. Sushila Kuar, the landlord, under khata no. 104 of village Kharta and the said Sheikh Shohabat, being a Kaimi Adhbataidar is a tenant with occupancy rights and is not liable to eviction and after the vesting of the estate, said Sheikh Shohabat became a full fledged raiyat of the said suit plot and he was in peaceful possession thereof since more than 50 years. It is alleged that Sheikh Shohabat died in the year 1936 leaving behind her only daughter, the original plaintiff -appellant, who inherited the suit plot and she came in possession thereof and continued as such since then.It is further alleged that the plaintiff -appellant lived in the house of her husband in another village and she is cultivating the suit plot through her own cousin Sheikh Bucha as her agent who is holding the suit plot on her behalf and the defendants -respondent without any rhyme or reason started creating disturbances in her peaceful possession over the suit plot on false pretext without any legal right, title or interest therein and he, being a stranger, intends to grab the suit plot taking advantage of her absence. It is also alleged that khata No. 104 consists of three plots including the suit plot and the defendants -respondent is advancing false and mala fide claim over the suit plot only which has cast a clog on her title and hence the necessity of the suit.