PRABHAT KR.HAZAM Vs. RAJESHWAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the 11 Additional District Judge. Dumka in Title Appeal No. 4 of 1997 affirming the judgment and decree dated 16.10.1996 passed by the Sub -Judge II Dumka in Title Suit No. 32 of 1985.

(2.) THE defendants were the appellants -appellants. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of their right and title over the suit land. described in Schedule -1 of the plaint.

(3.) THE defendants appeared and contested the suit by filling the -written statement stating, inter alia., that the suit as framed was not maintainable and same is barred by law of limitation. According to the defendants, the suit property belonged to one Kirtarath Hazam. Shiv Jogi Hazam was not the son of Kirtarath Hazam and was not the sole owner and Basauri Raiyat. He was the son of Ram Swarath Hazam. Shivjogi Hazam died issueless in the year 1970 leaving behind Kirtarath Hazam who also died issueless. Thereafter his brother Balkishun Hazam died leaving behind his two sons namely Jiban Hazam and Lachmi Hazam, Jivan Hazam died in the year 1965 leaving behind a widow namely Ramdulari Devi and two sons namely Jagdish Hazam and Ram Chandra who are the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 in the present suit. The own brother Ram Sundar Hazam died after the death of Kirtarath Hazam leaving behind his only son Sheopujan Hazam who died in the year 1958 leaving behind two sons namely Shiva Shankar Hazam and Jagarnath Hazam who are the defendants No. 1 and 4. According to the defendants, after the death of Kirtarath Hazam, his properties were inherited by his surviving brothers Bal Krishna Hazam and Ram Sundar hazam. It is stated that after the death of Kirtarath Hazam his properties were inherited by the ancestors of the defendants and by Ramdulari Devi and Kanti Devi. The defendants denied that Shiv Jogi Hazam was ever in possession and occupation of the properties of Kirtarath Hazam. It is further stated that Shivjogi Hazam died in the year 1970. During his life time he brought Bimla Devi as concubine. She was not legally married wife of Shivjogi Hazam. It was stated that Bimla Devi brought two daughters born through her previous husband. As such Bimla Devi had no right, title and interest over the suit property. Defendants claimed that they were the tenants on monthly rent of Rs. 15/ -.