BENI MAHTO Vs. HULAS MAHTO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal at the instance of the defendant -appellant has been preferred against the impugned judgment and decree dated 4.4.1990 and 18.4.1990 respectively passed in Title Appeal No. 65 of 1988/1 of 1990 by Shri Shyama Prasad Singh, 2nd Additional District Judge, Hazaribagh whereby and whereunder the appeal was dismissed affirming the judgment and decree of the Trial Court with modification directing the defendant -appellant to execute a deed of correction and the suit of the plaintiff was decreed in full.

(2.) THE plaintiff -respondent had filed the said title suit for declaration of this title and confirmation of his possession over 2 decimals of land in the northern side in plot No. 2644 appertaining to Khata No. 170 detailed in Schedule A of the plaint and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the suit land or any portion thereof or distributing and ousting the plaintiffs from the possession of the suit land. A further relief was also sought directing the defendant to execute a deed of correction or Bazidawa in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit land.

(3.) THE case of the defendant in his written statement, inter alia, is that, he has executed the sale deed dated 20.7.1953 in favour of the plaintiff in respect of 3 decimals of plot No. 515 and 4 decimals of plot No. 5881 of Khata No. 62 only and he has not executed any sale deed in respect of 2 decimals of plot No. 2644 of Khata No. 170 in favour of the plaintiff and thus the claim of the plaintiff in respect of 2 decimals of plot No. 2644 is false and baseless and the plaintiff was never put in possession over any portion of plot No. 2644. It is alleged that entire northern portion of plot No. 2644 is in his possession even today which he got in family partition in the year 1944 after the death of his father Nehal Mahto. Excavation of the well in the year 1954 by the plaintiff for the suit land has been denied. It is alleged that he and his other brothers had excavated well in the year 1942 in their respective portions of plot No. 2644 for irrigating the land. The further case of the defendant is that taking advantage of his ignorance and illiteracy the plaintiff has got plot No. 2944 inserted in the impugned sale deed dated 20.7.1953 without the knowledge of the defendant which the defendant came to know only after institution of the suit. It has further been alleged that the plaintiff had purchased only 7 decimals of land comprising of plot No. 515 and 5881 of Khata No. 162 through the sale deed dated 20.7.1953 and this defendant had never transferred 2 decimals of plot No. 2644 of Khata No. 170 by virtue of the said sale deed. Lastly it has been alleged that plaintiff has false alleged that he has approached this defendant for execution of a rectification deed or Bazidawa to his defendant for 2 decimals of land of plot No. 2644. The plaintiff has never acquired any right, title or interest in 2 decimals land of plot No. 2644 by virtue of the said sale deed and he was never in possession over the same.