Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
Sinha and K.Dayal JJ.
Ramgobind Singh
Versus
Ramranbijai Singh
Appeal from Original Decree No. 42 of 1948 ;
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 03, 1957
LAND REFORM - VESTING OF PROPRIETARY INTEREST IN STATE - SUBSEQUENT SUIT FOR DECLARATION OF TITLE AND RECOVERY OF POSSESSION - MAINTAINABILITY - APPELLATE COURT'S POWER TO TAKE NOTICE OF SUBSEQUENT EVENTS - REBUTTAL OF ENTRY IN RECORD-OF-RIGHTS - MORTGAGEE'S SETTLEMENT WITH TENANTS - OCCUPANCY RIGHTS - BIHAR TENANCY ACT, 1931, SECS. 5(3), 20(1), 21(1), 120.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of certain lands, alleging that the lands were their zirat lands and that the defendants had wrongfully taken possession of them. The defendants claimed that the lands were their ancestral kasht lands and that they had acquired occupancy rights by adverse possession.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court found that the lands were the plaintiffs' zirat lands and that the defendants had failed to prove their claim of adverse possession. The court also found that the entry in the record-of-rights showing the defendants as occupancy raiyats was incorrect.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiffs' suit was maintainable in view of the fact that their proprietary interest in the lands had vested in the State of Bihar under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950? 2. Whether the appellate court could take notice of subsequent events, such as the vesting of the plaintiffs' proprietary interest in the State of Bihar, in deciding the appeal? 3. Whether the plaintiffs had proved that the lands were their zirat lands? 4. Whether the defendants had acquired occupancy rights in the lands by adverse possession? 5. Whether the entry in the record-of-rights showing the defendants as occupancy raiyats was correct?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The appellate court has the power to take notice of subsequent events, such as the vesting of the plaintiffs' proprietary interest in the State of Bihar, in deciding the appeal, in order to shorten litigation and do complete justice between the parties. 2. The plaintiffs had proved that the lands were their zirat lands by producing documentary evidence showing that the lands had been cultivated as their private lands for more than 12 years prior to the passing of the Bihar Tenancy Act, 1931. 3. The defendants had not acquired occupancy rights in the lands by adverse possession because they did not come under the definition of "raiyat" under Section 5(3) of the Bihar Tenancy Act, 1931, as a mortgagee is neither a proprietor nor a tenure-holder. 4. The entry in the record-of-rights showing the defendants as occupancy raiyats was incorrect and was rebutted by the plaintiffs' documentary evidence.
Final Decision: The plaintiffs' appeal was allowed in part. The trial court's decree for possession was set aside, and the plaintiffs were granted a decree for declaration of title and mesne profits up to the date of vesting of their proprietary interest in the State of Bihar.
Sinha, J.
1. This appeal is by the defendants 2nd party to an action for a declaration of title and recovery of possession with mesne profits.
2. The plaintiffs case is that the suit lands, namely, 14 bighas--8.30 acres, khata No. 741, plot Nos. 3554, 3555 and 3556, were the plaintiffs zirat lands. The plaintiffs ancestors had given, a registered rehan bond, dated 27-10-1897 (wrongly mentioned as the 28th October in the judgment) to one Basdeo Singh alias Baso Singh, in respect of 15 bighas 11 kathas of land in their milkiat share in Tauzi No. 1319, including the suit lands (Exhibit 5 original and exhibit 5a certified copy).
Thereafter, the plaintiffs ancestors executed another registered rehan bond sometime in, June, 1907 in favour of Raushandayal Singh and others in respect of 29 bighas of lands in villages Chaugain and Khairahi. The Chaugain lands-included the rehani lands covered by the earlier rehan bond in favour of Basdeo Singh. A portion of the rehan money was left with the second-mortgagees to redeem the earlier mortgage.
The second mortgagees redeemed the earlier mortgage bond and, thereafter, remained in Possession of the lands in suit. The defendants 3rd party are the descendants of the first mortgagee, namely, Basdeo Singh, and the defendants 4th party are the descendants of the second mortgagees, namely Raushandayal Singh and others. On 8-6-1941, the plaintiff redeemed the subsisting rehan bond of 1907, and endorsement of satisfaction was made on the bond (Exhibit 1b). After redemption the plaintiffs could not obtain possession of the lands in suit, and hence the suit.
The plaintiffs further case is that they later learnt that there was a case under Sec.145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure between the second rehandars, on one side, and Bahadur Koiri and Sukhari Kouri, who were brothers and who are the ancestors of the defendants 1st party, on the other, in respect of the suit lands.
In that proceeding, there was a compromise, and so far as the suit lands are concerned, me ancestors of the defendants 4th party got 9 bighas and Bariadur Koiri got possession over the remaining 5 bighas and remained in possession of it till 1320 fasli, after which the defendants 4th party took possession of it and they remained in possession of the entire 14 bighas. According to them, the two brothers, Bahadur Koiri and Sukhari Koiri, were fraudulently set up as claimants to the suit lands by the defendants 3rd party, the first rehandar, and, as a result of fraud between the defendants 2nd and 3rd parties; the defendants 2nd party are purchasers from the defendants 1st party.
The suit lands were recorded in the names of Bahadur Koiri and Sukhari Koiri as their occupancy holding at the survey which took place in 1912. The plaintiffs state that they are not bound by the said illegal and unjustifiable entry in the record-of-rights, and that by that entry, neither the defendants 1st party nor the defendants 2nd party acquired any title to the suit lands against the plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs also learnt that the defendants 2nd party entered into various fraudulent transactions with their relations in collusion with the defendants 1st party to create false evidence of title in their favour. Although the plaintiffs several times asked the defendants 1st and 2nd parties for possession of these lands, these defendants refused to make over possession to the plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs, therefore, had to go to Court.
3. Defendants 3rd party have not appeared in the suit, and defendants 4th party have filed a written statement supporting the plaintiffs case.
4. Defendants 1st and 2nd parties only contest the plaintiffs suit. They have filed separate written statements. Their common case is that the suit lands were never zirat lands of the plaintiffs, but it were raiyati lands of Bahadur Koiri and Sukhari Koiri, the ancestors of defendants 1st party, that neither the plaintiffs nor their ancestors nor their rehandars were ever in kha
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
