The court emphasized the importance of considering oral and documentary evidence in determining inheritance and possession rights, and highlighted the requirement for sufficient evidence to support claims of abandonment, relinquishment, and exchange.

ORDER

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The plaintiff(s)/appellant(s) filed a suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession. Alternative prayer was made for restoration of the possession. Following is the genealogy tree of the plaintiff's family:-

3. The case of the plaintiffs was that he inherited the property of Rajpati Bind and in R.S. Khatiyan his name came to be recorded. Rajpati Bind was the uncle of the plaintiff. He died heirless except the plaintiff. After few years Tokhan Bind, father of the plaintiff, also died leaving behind the plaintiff. After death of Rajpati Bind and Tokhan Bind, the plaintiff came in possession over their shares of the land.

4. Jagdish Singh the ancestor of the defendant(s) was ex landlord of Tauzi No.1693 of village Khulase, Khata Nos.223 and 224. The lands of above said khatas were in possession of Rajpati and Tokhan during their lifetime and after their death the plaintiff came in possession. The rent of Khata Nos.223, 224 and 228 has been commutted in favour of the plaintiff by Government of Bihar and the plaintiff has paid the rent. Disputed R.S. Nos.1387 and 2462 area 1 Bigha 11 Khtha and 9 Dhur is including Bag also. In R.S. No.1384, the plaintiff planted trees, 11 to 12 years before rest of the portion was cultivated. On 02.10.1966, the defendant(s) tried to interrupt the peaceful possession of the plaintiff.

5. The defendant(s) set up the case that genealogy tree given by the plaintiff is not correct. The plaintiff is not the member of the Goga Bind's family. After Rajpati Bind died heirless then all his lands were taken in possession by grandfather of the defendant(s) as he was landlord, since then the defendant(s) came in possession of the land. Plaintiff is not the heir of Rajpati Bind and had never been in possession of the land possessed by Rajpati Bind. In addition, plea was also taken that Tokhan Bind has relinquished certain land in favour of the defendant(s). Tokhan Bind relinquished Plot No.1750/2559. As such defendant(s) came in possession of that land also. The defendent(s) put up the case of exchange also. The defendant(s) took the plea of adverse possession also.

6. The Trial Court dismissed the suit. However, on appeal being preferred by the plaintiff, the First Appellate Court decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 29.04.1988 in T.A. No.125/1986.

7. The First Appellate Court on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence given a finding in favour of the plaintiff that he was the heir of Rajpati. The evidence of DW.21, defendant No.2 has been taken into consideration besides that of PW.3, PW.4, PW.11, PW.14 and PW.15 besides the First Appellate Court relied upon the Register II of Village Khulasa. Exhibit 2/A indicated that the name of the raiyat of holding No.168, Khata No.228 which originally belonged to Rajpati had been entered in the name of Sheodeni Bind and rent has been paid up to 1975-76 right from 1962-63. Thus the First Appellate Court concluded that the oral evidence of PWs considered alongwith entries in Exhibit 2/A proves that Sheodeni's name had been entered in register with respect to the property of Rajpati and that was the strong circumstance in favour of the plaintiff/appellants claimed that Rajpati and Sheodeni belong to common ancestor, namely, Bhanwar Bind. The First Appellate Court also took note of the fact that the defendant(s)/respondents have pleaded in para 6 that Goga Bind was the the son of Bhanwar Bind and it was not disputed that Rajpati was the descendants of Goga Bind and this fact was admitted by DW.22 also.

8. The First Appellate Court also found that the plaintiff had been paying the rent to the Government. Certain counterfoils were sought to be produced by the defendant(s), but they did not requisitioned them from the Government to indicate that they had practice of granting rent receipts to the raiyat.

9. The First Appellate Court also took the note of the plea that the defendant(s) had plea