TULA MAHTO Vs. CHAMAN MAHTO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal at the instance of the plaintiffs -appellant has been preferred against the impugned judgment and decree of reversal dated 23.12.1989 and 6.1.1990 respectively passed in Title Appeal No. 117 of 1988 by Shri Manohar Lal Visa, 2nd Additional District Judge, Giridih whereby and whereunder the appeal was allowed and the judgment of the trial Court passed in Title Suit No. 38 of 1985 was set aside and the suit was dismissed.

(2.) THE plaintiff -appellant have filed the said title suit for a declaration that the suit and detailed in the Schedule of the plaint is their raiyati land in which they have their right, title and interest and for recovery of possession evicting the defendants -respondent therefrom. The suit land is 4.06 acres consisting of several plots appertaining to Khata No. 1 Village -Kharna, Police Station -Gomia, District -Giridih.

(3.) THE case of the defendants -respondent (hereinafter referred to as defendants), inter alia, is that the plaintiffs are not at all in any way related with Aghanua Mahto, the recorded tenant of Khata No. 1 of Village -Kharna and they have no right, title, interest in and possession over the suit land at any point of time and they have also no locus standi to file this suit. It is alleged that Aghanua Mahto, the recorded tenant of Khata No. 1 of Village -Kharna died in the year 1918 and he was unmarried having no issue and on his death, the landlord resumed the suit land and came in possession over the same as his Bakast land. Aghanua Mahto had no legal heirs and as such the case of his heirs shifting to Village -Pejuwa is a myth and this Aghanua Mahto, the recorded tenant of Khata No. 1 had no land in Village -Pejuwa. Lalman Mahto, the father of the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 was not at all related with Aghanua Mahto and he was not his brother -in -law as alleged though Lalman Mahto aforesaid had sometimes cultivated the suit land on behalf of Aghanua Mahto, who was maintaining himself from the usufruct of the said land and it is false to say that the remaining usufruct was shared by the heirs of Aghanua Mahto, since Aghanua Mahto was unmarried and issueless. Further case of the defendants is that the landlord settled the suit land with Lalman Mahto and confirmed the settlement by grant of hukumnama dated Magh 15 Sambat 1985 and also granted rent receipt, and since then, Lalman Mahto remained in cultivating possession of the suit land exercising his right as raiyat openly and adversely to the knowledge of all including the plaintiffs for more than statutory period and thus, he has perfected his right, title by adverse possession and, even assuming though not admitting that the plaintiffs are the heirs and legal representatives of Aghanua Mahto, they have lost their right, if any, as per the law of limitation. Said Lalman Mahto died leaving behind his two sons i.e. defendant Nos. 1 and 2, who inherited him and came in possession over the suit land and defendant No. 1 has constructed three houses on Plot No. 74 about 20 years ago and he is living there along with his family and these defendants have been mutated in the Serista of the landlord and thereafter he was recognized as the tenant by the State and he paid rent to them and got rent receipts, it is false to say that Lalman Mahto or his sons i.e. the defendants have ever cultivated the suit land with the permission of the plaintiffs and have ever delivered any usufruct of the suit land to them. The defendant as per their right have executed the sale deed in favour of their respective waives in respect of the suit land.