MAHADEO HAZAM Vs. BUDHNI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the parties.

(2.) This Second Appeal has been preferred by the appellant under section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the judgment and decree dated 205.1992 of 4th Additional District Judge, Hazaribag in Title Appeal No. 71 of 1987, setting aside the judgment and decree of the Munsif Koderma passed in Title Suit No. 7 of 1981 filed by the plaintiff-appellant of this second appeal with prayer for declaration of right, title, interest and confirmation of possession over the schedule A land of the suit land and other reliefs.

(3.) The case of the plaintiff-appellant of this second appeal is that Smt. Pato Kumari inducted the father of the plaintiff namely Bodhi Hazam in respect of suit land by granting Dar-raiyat paper with permanent right there under. The father of the plaintiff continued in possession along with other land, which was too given to him by virtue of Dar-raiyati paper in the year 1996 Sambat. After the death of the father of the plaintiff Bodhi Hazam in the year 1960, the plaintiff continued to be in possession over the suit land and the rent was paid to Smt. Pato Kumari in respect of the suit land. The land of Khata no. 612 was recorded in the name of plaintiff in the Khatiyan finally published under Sec. 83 (2) Chotanagpur Tenancy Act in the year 1996 but in the remarks column of the Khatiyan, the status of plaintiff was shown as Sikamidar under the raiyat of Smt. Pato Kumari. Although Khatiyan was prepared in the name of the plaintiff but due to entry in the remark column as Sikamidar, the plaintiff was advised to take a sale deed in respect of suit land from Smt. Pato Kumari. Consequently, Smt. Pato Kumari executed a registered sale deed on 02.05.73 in respect of suit land and other land for consideration of Rs. 200.00 in favour of the plaintiff and the plaintiff got his name mutated and paid rent to the State of Bihar in respect of the land of Khata no. 612. It is also the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff and his father converted Schedule 'A' land to paddy filed which was previously tand land. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the defendants having no right, title or possession over the suit land wanted to disturb his possession, which resulted to a proceeding under Sec. 144 Crimial P.C., 1973 and later on, the same was converted to a proceeding under Sec. 145 Cr.P.C , 1973and the Executive Magistrate decided the case ex-parte. The plaintiff has made categorical averments that he has acquired title over the suit land by remaining in possession of the suit property and of the other land adversely to the complete ouster of the defendant and the whole world.