KAMLA PRASAD SINGH Vs. MANRUP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal at the instance of the plaintiffs appellant stands directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 25.01.1989 and 06.02.1989 respectively passed in title appeal No. 21 of 1987 by Shri Uma Shankar Prasad, 3rd Additional District Judge, Palamau whereby and whereunder the judgment and decree dated 30.06.1987 and 13.07.1987 passed in title suit No. 64 of 1983 by Shri Tabarak Hussain, Munsif, Palamau were affirmed and the appeal was dismissed.

(2.) THE appellants had filed the said suit for declaration of their title in respect of the suit land as their raiyati land and confirmation of their possession and in the alternative for recovery of possession detailed in the schedule at the foot of the plaint situate in village Bakaskhap PS, Lesliganj, District Palamau. The suit plot Nos. 17 and 18 having an area of 1.22 acres and 0.2 acres appertain to Khata No. 11.

(3.) THE case of the respondents, inter alia, is that their ancestor Ram Rup Singh was the recorded tenant of Khata No. 11 of village Bakaskhap and it is not a fact that he had ever left village Bakaskhap abandoning the suit land soon after the cadastral survey. It is alleged that so long he was alive he lived in his village Bakaskhap and after his death his descendants are living therein. It is alleged that village Basaura is at a distance of only 200 yards from his residential house in village Bakaskhap and Tima Singh the son 'sson of the recorded tenant aforesaid took settlement of some land in village Basaura and he constructed a house thereon about 35 years prior to this suit after the death of his son believed to have been caused by ghost in the ancestral house situate in village Bakaskhap and he started residing with his family members in the said newly constructed house. It is alleged that so long Ram Rup Singh was alive he remained in cultivating possession of the suit land and after his death his descendants are in cultivating possession of the suit land and there is a distance of only 100 yards between the residential portion of both the villages and the suit land is at a very little distance from the house of the respondents and there is no difficulty for. them in cultivating the suit land. The further case of the respondents is that Tima Singh, the father of the respondents fell in need of money about two and half years prior to 1970 and he approached Badri Narain Singh, the father of the appellants, to provide him a loan of Rs. 25/ - only and said Badri Narain Singh and Proforma defendant No. 4 agreed to advance the said loan to him if he gives temporary possession of the suit land to them till the loan amount is paid and Tima Singh took the loan of Rs. 25/ - and handed over the possession over the suit land to Badri Narain Singh aforesaid and, thereafter, Tima Singh refunded the loan amount to him but he refused to re -deliver possession to Tima Singh over the suit land which compelled him to file a case under Sec. 71 -A of the said Act and the possession was restored to him by the order of the Deputy Commissioner in the said proceeding.