ETWA ORAON Vs. KARO ORAON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal at the instance of the plaintiffs -appellant stands directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 30.4.1988 and 7.5.1988 respectively passed in Title Appeal No. 6 of 1987 by Shri Krishna Nand Singh, Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi whereby and whereunder the judgment and decree dated 31.7.1986 and 16.8.1986 passed in Partition Suit No. 53 of 1978/42 of 1985 by Additional Sub -Judge, Ranchi was affirmed and the appeal was dismissed.

(2.) THE appellants have filed the said suit for partition of the suit property detailed in Schedules "B" "C" of the plaint and also for a declaration that the order under Sec. 71 -A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) is void, illegal and erroneous.

(3.) THE case of defendants -respondent, inter alia, is that there was amicable partition between the parties before the revisional survey and they were in separate and exclusive possession of the land but no separate khata was prepared and the rent was joint and their separate possession has been recorded in the remarks column of the Survey Records of Right and similarly Bhuinharl lands belonging to the parties have also been partitioned and separate khewats were prepared for each branch. Their further case is that the then landlord Maharaja of Ratu filed a rent suit against the recorded tenants of khata No. 35 and got a decree and in execution of the said decree in Execution Case No. 82 (R) -9 of 1942 -43 one Gajadhar Ram Pandey auction purchased the entire land appertaining to khata No. 35 and delivery of possession over the land of khata No. 35 was effected in his favour and he paid rent to the then landlord for some years and thereafter, orally settled the land of khata No. 35 to the defendant -respondent Ram Pahan and thereafter said Ram Pahan and his brothers got their names mutated in the State of Bihar and are getting regular rent receipts of their rent and since then the defendants -respondent are in possession of the lands under khata No. 35 continuously and openly for more than twelve years and have acquired perfect title by adverse possession and the plaintiffs -appellant have no subsisting title or possession over the land of khata No. 35 after the said auction sale. Their, further case is that plaintiff -appellant Laxminia Oraon (since dead) had filed a case under Sec. 71 -A of the said Act for restoration of possession in her favour in respect of the entire land of khata No. 35 and the said case was dismissed and, thereafter, she has filed this suit for partition on fictitious grounds.