BHIKHA MUNDA Vs. LAGNU MUNDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

(2.) Appellant herein was the plaintiff-appellant before the Court below. They lost in both the Courts. Title Suit No.209 of 2007 was filed by the appellant and other plaintiffs for declaration of their right, title and interest over the suit property and for confirmation of possession over the suit property and in the alternative, if it is found that defendant No.1 has dispossessed the plaintiffs from any portion of the suit property, the plaintiffs may be put in khas possession of the property by evicting the defendant therefrom, besides other relief and cost of the suit. The suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 26th February, 2010 (decree signed on 12.03.2010) by the Sub Judge I, Ranchi. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff preferred a title appeal being Title Appeal No.46 of 2010, which was also dismissed on 31st March, 2015.

(3.) The plaintiffs claimed right, title and interest over R.S. Khata No.154 of Village Morabadi. The plaintiffs and defendant No.1 were related to each other. The plaintiffs claimed that though the khata was shown as joint, but, in fact, partition had taken place and possession of different parties were recorded in the remarks column of the khatian. It is stated that Lagnu Munda, who is defendant No.1 in this case, in association of bad elements, creating some false papers let the land mafias to occupy the lands belonging to schedule tribes. It is stated that one Aziz and Abdul Sattar, by fraudulent methods managed to get a compromise decree in the year 1963 with regard to 42 decimals of land in Plot No. 912, 73 decimals in plot No.911 and 59 decimals in plot No.914. Lalit Munda, Jatra Munda and others filed an application for restoration and the Special Officer allowed such restoration and the lands were restored in favour of the plaintiffs. Further, in another land acquisition case, 73 decimals of plot No.911, 42 decimals of plot No.912 and 59 decimals of plot No.914 were also restored. It is the case that the defendant No.1 was illegally occupying the lands, title of which vests with the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs claimed that his mud house constructed over plot No.911 was demolished by defendant No.1, which casts cloud on the title of the plaintiffs.