OM PRAKASH SINGH Vs. RAJESH BHARTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants.

(2.) The appellants have filed this appeal against the judgment dated 14.03.2016 decree signed on 28.03.2016 passed by Judicial Commissioner-VI, Ranchi in Title Appeal No. 121 of 2008 , whereby the appeal has been dismissed and judgment dated 26.08.2008 decree signed on 08.09.2008 passed by Sub Judge-II, Ranchi in Title Suit No. 107 of 2001 has been affirmed.

(3.) The appellant/defendant filed a suit for decree for removal of encroachment over scheduled land along with prayer to put the plaintiff in possession over the same by removing all unauthorized and illegal structures and construction standing thereon. In the plaint it was averred that the lands comprised within R.S. Khewat No. 4/1, Khata No.1, Plot No. 31 of village Bariatu, P.S. Bariatu, Dist.-Ranchi previously belonged to Md. Ghasif Khan of village Bariatu as his Chhaparbandi holding. Ghasif Khan through the registered deed of settlement dated 4.07.1955 made settlement of the aforesaid plot having an area of 0.24 acres to Mostt. Aigun Bibi which was sub-divided as sub-plot no. 31/A measuring an area of 0.24 acres to Smt. Kalawati Devi Jalan widow of Chiranjee Lal Jalan of Upper Bazar, Ranchi through registered deed of sale dated 27.02.1959. The said Kalawati Jalan through the registered deed of sale dated 24.10.1962 sold and transferred the aforesaid land of 0.24 acres of sub-plot no. 31/A to Smt. Anusuia Jhunjhunwala wife of Arjun Lal Jhunjhunwala of Upper Bazar, Ranchi. All the aforesaid transfers were made on receipt of the valuable consideration amount and the purchasers came in peaceful possession over their purchased lands and acquired valid right, title and interest over the same. Smt. Ansuia Jhunjhunwalla constructed a small house over her purchased area of 0.24 acre and the house was named as "Anusuia Kutir" wherein she time to time resided. Thereafter, Anusuia Jhunjhunwalla executed an unregistered Will on 07.08.1984 in favour of her daughter-in-law namely (1) Smt. Urmila Jhunjhunwala, W/o Jyoti Prakash Jhunjhunwala (2) Smt. Sudha Jhunjhunwalla, W/o Deepak Jhunjhunwala and (3) Smt. Champa Jhunjhunwala, W/o Ravishanker Jhunjhunwalla. After death of Anusuia Jhunjhunwalla the probate of the aforesaid Will somehow or the other could not be obtained in favour of the aforesaid legatees under the Will and accordingly the legal heirs/successors of the late Anusuia Jhunjhunwalla decided to sell the property aforesaid and accordingly sold 0.24 acres of land of sub-plot No. 31/A in favour of plaintiff through registered deed of sale dated 25.07.1989 after receipt of the valuable consideration amount. The appellant/plaintiff acquired valid right, title and interest over the property purchased by her and also made construction and erected boundary wall over the same. The extent of the purchase by the plaintiff is 63 ft. wide in the Western side and 59 ft. wide in the Eastern side and likewise the length of the purchased area is 147 ft. long in the Southern side and 146 ft. 6 inches in the Northern side of the said plot. Subsequently, the property was purchased by Kapil Vastu Grih Nirman Samittee but Sushil Kumar Sinha and Ajit Kumar Sinha illegally and unauthorizedly sold under three registered deed of sale dated 23.05.1997 and the defendants claim to have purchased portion of plot No. 31 and 32 through the said registered deeds of sale. It was further case of the appellant/defendant that from the sale deed dated 23.05.1997 executed by Sushil Kumar Sinha it transpires that the vendor has sold 10 ft x 147 ft. road west to east to the Southern side of the plot encroaching upon 1 ft. x 147 ft. of the plaintiffs land as shown in the red wash of the map attached to plaint this area is dispute in question and in that a suit in question was instituted by the respondent/defendant. The said Grih Nirman Samittee had purchased only 9 ft x 147 ft. road and the said Sushil Kumar Sinha had absolutely no right to sell the plaintiffs land measuring 1 ft. x 147 ft. west to east on the Southern side of the plot and as such the defendants have absolutely no right to claim over the said 1 ft. x 147 ft. of land and the encroachment of the same has to be removed under the law. It was further pleaded that after purchase of the aforesaid land the defendants violated all the terms and understanding and the case of strong prima facie and balance of convenience made out by the respondents/plaintiffs.