ROHINI DEBI Vs. BHARAT COKING COAL LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. M.K. Laik, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mr. Vijay Kant Dubey, learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) The present second appeal has been filed for setting aside the judgment dated 31.01.2017 decree signed on 13.02.2017 passed by the District Judge-XI, Dhanbad whereby the Civil Appeal No. 31 of 2015 has been dismissed and the judgment dated 10.03.2015 passed in T.S. No. 159 of 2002 has been affirmed.

(3.) The appellants/plaintiffs have filed the suit for recovery of the possession of the suit land by evicting the respondents/defendants which was mentioned in the schedule of the plaint was recorded in the name of Sukar Mahato and Jagarnath mahato, son of Madhu Mahato and other co-sharers but the lands were partitioned between Second Appeal No. 158 of 2017 the co-sharers prior to the preparation of record of right. The suit land i.e. plot no. 481 along with other land were allotted in the heirs of Sukar Mahato and Jagarnath Mahato and their names have been recorded in the remarks column of record of right showing the land under their possession. Sukar Mahato and Jagarnath Mahato partitioned the land mentioned in the schedule below along with other land that fell in the share of Jagarnath Mahato and they remained in continuous possession over the same. There are other lands which were being sold by some persons to the defendants and, therefore, the appellants/plaintiffs and other co-sharers were interested in other plots also so they filed a suit against the defendants including some persons who claimed the land in the Court of Munsif II, Dhanbad registered as Title Suit No. 23 of 1995 the said suit was decided and the court is finally decided the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs along with other persons including the land mentioned in the schedule in favour of the plaintiffs along with other persons including the land mentioned in the schedule in favour of the plaintiffs by his judgment dated 25.02.1999 but during the pendency of the suit the defendant nos. 1 & 2 encroached upon the land mentioned in the schedule on 15.12.96 and assured the appellants/plaintiffs to provide service of the land in question but in spite of several requests by the appellants/plaintiffs they did not provide employment to the appellants/plaintiffs of the suit land which is a valuable and the appellants/plaintiffs are in need of the same for their livelihood and for that, recovery of possession is necessary in the suit land from the defendants who have no right, title, interest over the same whereas the appellants/plaintiffs being the sons of recorded tenant Jagarnath Mahato have got perfect right, title & interest over the suit land and at last they have sought for the decree in favour of the appellants/plaintiffs and against the defendants for recovery of possession of the suit land evicting them from the same with cost of the suit.