LALIT KUMAR SINGH Vs. LAWANGI BIBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are aggrieved of order dated 04.04.2017 passed in Title Suit No. 29 of 2004 by which their application dated 01.10.2016 filed for recalling the order dated 20.09.2016 has been rejected.

(2.) Plea taken by the petitioners, who are defendants in the suit, is that if further opportunity to examine their witness is not granted and records of Case Nos. 5 of 1997 and 13 of 1997 from the Court of Deputy Commissioner Land Reforms are not called for, it would cause irreparable loss to them.

(3.) Title Suit No. 29 of 2004 was instituted by Lawangi Bibi for a decree for declaration of her Kaiyami occupancy right over the suit property and for a declaration that she is entitled to be recognised as occupancy raiyat by creating Jamabandi in the revenue records in her name. The plaintiff has pleaded that schedule-A land is recorded as occupancy raiyati land during the last cadestral survey and settlement operation in the name of Butan Jolha and his son Anayat Mian. Producing a genealogy table of Butan Jolha, the plaintiff has described how the suit schedule property came in possession of Ser Ali Mian after vesting of the zamindari. She claims that Ser Ali Mian was illiterate and she also is a rustic and illiterate lady who does not recognise the rent receipts. The defendants contested the suit by filing a written statement taking a stand that the ex-landlord Dilip Narayan Singh is not represented through all his legal heirs and successors and in fact the recorded raiyat Butan Mian and Anayant Mian surrendered the land in khata no. 24 and 42 orally shortly after the completion of survey and settlement operation. There is a reference to Partition Suit No. 11 of 1920 in which the defendants have claimed that Babu Dilip Narayan Singh, ancestor of the defendants being ex-landlord of village-Rohila was allocated 6 Annas share and separate Takhta for that was carved out in terms of the preliminary decree passed in the partition suit. However, in the written statement there is no reference of Case No. 5 of 1997 and Case No. 13 of 1997 allegedly pending in the Court of Deputy Commissioner Land Reforms.