NARAYAN GOPE Vs. DULARI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is against the judgment and decree of affirmance passed by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No. I in Title Appeal No. 26 of 1998 dismissing the appeal and upholding the judgment and decree of learned Munsif, Hazaribagh in Title Suit No. 122 of 1991.

(2.) THE respondent -plaintiff had filed Title Suit seeking a decree for declaration of his title and confirmation of possession and alternatively for recovery of possession over the lands described in Schedule 'A' of the plaint. The plaintiff has also prayed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff. The plaintiffs case is that Plot No. 1116 of Village Khirgaon, measuring an area of 18 decimals belongs to the recorded tenants of Khata No. 100 who had partitioned the said land amongst themselves. The father of the defendants had purchased an area of 4 1/2 decimals out of 18 decimals of said plot No. 1116. Thereafter in 1969 the only son of the recorded tenant had sold the remaining 13 1/2 decimals of Plot No. 1116 to the plaintiff -respondent by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 19.09.1969 and had put the purchaser in possession. The plaintiff, thereafter, got her name mutated and constructed a house in the middle of plot No. 1116. She also subsequently purchased 20 decimals of Plot No. 1117 from the heir of the recorded tenants and amalgamated the two plots, i.e., Plot No. 1116 and Plot No. 1117. The further case was that the plaintiff had left about 4 decimals of land towards west of the house for egress and ingress. The plaintiff and her husband had been staying in Singhbhum where her husband was engaged in his occupation Taking advantage of the absence of the plaintiff, the defendants started laying foundation for construction of the house over the western portion of the vacant land of the plaintiff on Plot No. 1116. On getting information, the plaintiff came to Hazaribagh and initiated a proceeding under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which was subsequently dropped holding that the case is of civil nature. Subsequently, the suit was filed. During the pendency of the suit, an amendment was made in the plaint adding that the plaintiff has been dispossessed from the suit land by the defendants who has constructed two rooms and compound wall and closed the plaintiffs road used as ingress and egress.

(3.) ON the basis of the pleadings of the parties, several issues were framed by learned Trial Court. The parties led their evidences. While deciding Issues No. 5 and 6 regarding the right, title of the parties, learned Trial Court, after thorough scrutiny, discussion and consideration of evidences and materials on record, came to the finding that the plaintiff has got valid right, title and interest in the suit land and that the defendants' father has purchased the eastern portion of the suit land and the defendants forcibly dispossessed the plaintiff, some time, in the year 1991 by raising construction over the land of the plaintiff. The defendants were never in possession of the suit land. They also failed to prove their adverse possession. Learned Court held that the plaintiff was allegedly dispossessed by the defendants by trespassing over his land. He further decided the other issues in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit and the defendants were directed to hand over vacant possession over the suit land. Against the said judgment and decree of the Trial Court, the defendants preferred an appeal in the Court of the District Judge, Hazaribagh, which was registered as Title Appeal No. 26 of 1998. The said appeal was finally heard and disposed of by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No. I, Hazaribagh. Learned Lower Appellate Court has also dealt with and discussed the entire facts, evidences and materials on record, issuewise, and after an elaborate discussion and consideration of the same, has concurred with the findings of the Trial Court and held that learned Trial Court had rightly declared the plaintiffs' right, title and interest and there was no infirmity in the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and the same does not require any interference. Learned Lower Appellate Court, thus, affirmed the judgment and decree of learned Trial Court.