LAKHAN LALL PODDAR Vs. BHAGARTHI BHAGAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the defendant -appellant is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18.9.2002 passed by Additional District Judge, Lohardaga in Title Appeal No. 34/94 whereby he has reversed the judgment and decree dated 4.2.1994 passed by Sub -Judge, Lohardaga in Title Suit No. 255/1986. and decreed the suit.

(2.) ON 1.7.2004 this appeal was admitted for hearing on the following substantial question of law: Whether the lower appellate Court has committed an error in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court without considering the evidences of the defendant - respondent and without giving any specific finding as to when the documents were withdrawn by the defendants and as to when the notice for production of the same was issued to him?

(3.) PLAINTIFFS case, in brief, is that the entire landed property shown in schedule 'A' of the plaint was owned and possessed by three persons, namely, Jibraj Poddar, Nagarmal Poddar and Amlok Chand Poddar, whose names were duly recorded in revisional survey records of right. The said recorded tenants alleged to have remained In possession over schedule 'A' land till 1982. Thereafter, Jibraj Poddar and Nagar -mal Poddar sold the entire schedule 'A' property to the plaintiff by registered deed of sale dated 12.1.1982 in which Amlok Chand Poddar consented the said sale deed. Plaintiffs case is that since the aforementioned recorded raiyats were residing outside Ranchi, they entrusted the plaintiff to look after and manage the properties including schedule 'A' property. After purchase of schedule 'A' land the plaintiff alleged to have sold 0.41 decimals of land to several persons on different dates and put them in possession of the same. Those lands have been described in schedule 'B ' of the plaint. It is alleged that the purchasers got their names mutated in respect of their respective purchased lands. The remaining 29 decimals of land of schedule 'A' which has been shown in schedule 'C' still remained in possession of the plaintiff and he has been coming in possession thereof. According to the plaintiff, the dispute arose when the defendant claimed title over the suit property and tried to disturb possession of the plaintiff which resulted in initiation of 144, Cr PC proceeding subsequently converted into 145, Cr PC proceeding which remained pending in the Court of Sub -divisional Magistrate, Lohardaga. In that proceeding the defendant claimed to have entered into an agreement with one Mast Ram Modi who, according to the plaintiff had no right title and interest over the suit property. During the pendency of the suit the defendant purchased the suit property after the death of Mast Ram Modi, from his heirs by virtue of registered deed of sale dated 20.9.1990. The said sale deed has also been challenged by the plaintiff by filing amendment petition.