BAIDNATH MAHTO Vs. JADU MAHTO @ JADUNANDAN MAHATO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal at the instance of the plaintiffs -appellant has been preferred against the impugned judgment and decree dated 28.1.1989 and 9.2.1989 respectively passed in Title Appeal No. 38 of 1984 by Shri Anil Kumar Sinha, 3rd Additional District Judge, Dhanbad whereby and whereunder the appeal was allowed and the judgment and decree of the Trial Court passed in Title Suit No. 153 of 1981 was set aside and the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed.

(2.) THE plaintiffs -appellant have filed the said suit for declaration of their raiyati right and title and recovery of possession in respect of the suit land situate in Village -Dhokhra (No. 12), Police Station - Baliapur, District -Dhanbad fully detailed in Schedule -B of the plaint.

(3.) THE case of the defendants -respondent, inter alia, Is that Ranjay Mahto, the predecessor -in - interest of the defendants -respondent was in possession of the land of khata No. 145, till his death since the time of Bhola Prasad Singh aforesaid as his bhagidar and after him his son Kartik Mahto remained in possession thereon as such and on 21.3.1944 Raja Shiva Prasad Singh made a permanent raiyati settlement of 12.01 acres of land recorded under khata No. 145 described in Schedule -M, of the written statement including the suit plots with Kartik Mahto on payment of salami of Rs. 901/ - and on annual rental of Rs. 9/8/0 besides Rs. 0/7/0 as cess and since then he remained in possession thereon as occupancy raiyat and after vesting of the Estate they are paying rent to the State of Bihar by virtue of the order passed in Case No. 19 of 1960 -61. It is alleged that the defendants -respondent being in possession of the land of khata No. 145 since then continuously, openly as of right, adversely to the knowledge of all including the plaintiffs - respondent and their predecessor -in -interest for over 12 years had acquired a perfect and indefeasible title to the land aforesaid including the suit land. The further case of the defendants - respondent is that the alleged deed of settlement dated 4.9.1936 (Ext. 4) executed by Raja Shiva Prasad Singh in favour of Kumar Rama Prasad Singh is a collusive document and a mere paper transaction which was never acted upon and further Kumar Rama Prasad Singh was a minor at that time and the said document being in favour of an unrepresented minor is void in law and under the said deed Kumar Rama Prasad Singh had neither acquired any title in respect thereof nor has ever come in possession of the land of khata No. 145. It is alleged that deed of settlement dated 6.6.1962 in favour of Gore Chand Mahto purported to have been executed by Kumar Rama Prasad Singh is a collusive deed and said Gore Chand Mahto did not acquire any right, title or interest in the suit land and he has also not come in possession thereon. It is also alleged that the suit for declaration of the raiyati right of the plaintiffs - appellant on the basis of the alleged settlement of the year 1962 from Mukraridar i.e. Kumar Rama Prasad Singh whose right has already vested under the B.L.R. Act, 1950 is not maintainable and the plaintiffs -appellant have not at all acquired any raiyati right by virtue of the settlement made in the year 1962 in their favour. The further case of the defendants -respondent is that Gore Chand Mahto with the help of the musclemen wanted to take forcible possession of the suit land which compelled Harkhu Mahto, the ancestor of the defendants -respondent to initiate a proceeding under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure bearing M.P. Case No. 1250 of 1975 which was converted into a proceeding under Sec.145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the possession of the defendants - respondent was declared in the said proceeding.