HABIB ANSARI Vs. JASIM ANSARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, who are the plaintiffs in Title Suit No.93 of 1996, are aggrieved of order dtd. 19/5/2018 by which the defendants have been permitted to examine the Finger-Print Expert-Sita Ram Prasad Sharma as a witness to prove the report. They have challenged a part of the order dtd. 1/5/2017 also; by this order the defendants were permitted to ensure attendance of the Finger-Print Expert on their own.

(2.) Briefly stated, Title Suit No.93 of 1996 has been instituted for a decree for declaration of the plaintiffs' and the proforma defendants' title and possession over the suit land and for confirmation of their possession thereon, and in the alternative a decree for recovery of possession to the plaintiffs and the proforma-defendants if they are found dispossessed. Claiming that the sale-deed dtd. 24/8/1936 allegedly executed by Seikh Rahmat Ali in favour of Seikh Ramjan has been fraudulently obtained, the plaintiffs seek a declaration that the sale-deed dtd. 24/8/1936 is illegal, inoperative, invalid and void. The plaintiffs have pleaded that they along with the proforma defendants are descendants of Jhanku Jolha, who was one of the recorded tenants of the lands comprised under Khata No.30 situated in village-Kothar. After death of the said Jhanku Jolha; his brother Gansu Jolha died issueless and Nanku Jolha died unmarried during the life time of Jhanku Jolha, the entire land comprised under Khata No.30 which had come in possession of Jhanku Jolha and who continued to pay rent to the ex-landlord and after the vesting who was recognized as tenant by the State of Bihar, devolved upon his son-Rahmat Ali. The said Rahmat Ali continued to pay rent to the State of Bihar and rent receipts were issued in the name of his father. The plaintiffs have asserted that through sale-deed dtd. 20/2/1970 about 0.80 acres land in Khata No.30 and through sale-deed dtd. 14/5/1979 about 0.1 acres land were sold by Rahmat Ali to Mansukhlal and Mannu Ravidas. On 27/8/1983, Rahmat Ali died and his wife, son and the daughters inherited his properties.

(3.) The plaintiff no.1 is son of Rahmat Ali and the plaintiff no.2 is the grand-son of Rahmat Ali; his father namely, Mubarak Ali was one of the three sons of Rahmat Ali. The defendants contested the suit by raising various objections to the maintainability of the suit, however, they have admitted the plaint averments in paragraph nos.1 to 5 whereunder the chronology of events how the land in question came to Jhanku Jolha has been narrated. The defendants have laid a claim over the suit property by virtue of sale-deed dtd. 24/8/1936 which they claim has been executed by Rahmat Ali in favour of their father namely, Ramjan Seikh. The defendants have further pleaded that by virtue of order dtd. 11/8/1936 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh in Case No.51 of 1936-37 permission was granted for transfer of 1.66 acres land by Rahmat Ali in favour of their father who continued to pay rent in respect of 1.66 acres land.