Back
1983 Supreme(Pat) 338
PATNA HIGH COURT
Ashwini Kumar Sinha, J.
Sidheshwar Singh
Versus
Bajrangi Singh
Appeal From Appellate Decree No. 428 of 1973 ;
Decided On : DECEMBER 15, 1983
In a land dispute, the determination of title and possession depends on the proper interpretation of documentary evidence and the evaluation of oral testimony. The findings of the lower courts on factual issues, such as the location of the suit lands and the validity of title documents, are generally upheld by the High Court in second appeal unless they are found to be unreasonable or perverse.
Headnote:
LAND DISPUTE - TITLE AND POSSESSION - EVIDENCE - INTERPRETATION OF DOCUMENTS - LEGAL IMPACT OF ENTRY OF DARMIANI HAQDAR - FACTUAL FINDINGS BY LOWER COURTS - INTERFERENCE IN SECOND APPEAL.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title, confirmation of possession, and injunction over disputed lands. The plaintiff claimed to have acquired the lands through auction sale and subsequent settlement, while the defendants claimed ownership based on sale deeds from the original tenants and a separate tauzi number. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the lower appellate court reversed the decision in favor of the plaintiff.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court upheld the findings of the lower appellate court. It held that the suit lands fell under the original tauzi number and not the newly carved out tauzi number claimed by the defendants. The Court also found that the defendants failed to prove their possession over the suit lands for more than 12 years.
Issues: 1. Whether the suit lands fell under the original tauzi number or the newly carved out tauzi number? 2. Whether the defendants had acquired valid title over the suit lands through sale deeds from the original tenants? 3. Whether the plaintiff had proved his possession over the suit lands for more than 12 years?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court relied on documentary evidence, including khatiyan, khewat, and oral khewat, to determine that the suit lands fell under the original tauzi number. It held that the defendants' claim of a separate tauzi number was not supported by the evidence. 2. The Court found that the defendants failed to prove that they had acquired valid title over the suit lands through sale deeds from the original tenants. It held that the sale deeds were executed after the plaintiff had acquired the lands through auction sale. 3. The Court held that the plaintiff had proved his possession over the suit lands for more than 12 years. It relied on the plaintiff's oral and documentary evidence, including rent receipts and a decree in a rent suit, to establish possession.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the defendants' second appeal and upheld the judgment of the lower appellate court in favor of the plaintiff.
1. This Second Appeal is by the defendants against the judgment of reversal.
2. The plaintiff brought a suit for declaration of his right, title and interest in the suit lands. He also prayed for confirmation of possession over the same and, in the alternative, for recovery of possession. The plaintiff also prayed that the defendants be restrained by permanent injunction from interfering with the possession, of the plaintiff over the suit lands. The suit lands were described in Schedule A of the plaint and they are plot No. 6616, appertaining to khata No. 1884 and area 20 decimals; plot number 6686, appertaining to khata No. 1885 and area 11 decimals and plot No. 6619, appertaining to khata No. 1886 area 21 decimals-all appertaining to tauzi number 4268 and Khewat No. 69.
3. According to the plaintiff, one Chhathu Missir was the proprietor of tauzi No. 4268 under Khewat No. 69 of village Shamsuddinpur Maner Mahal Mohammadpur Painal. Plots Nos. 6616 and 6686 were recorded as raiyati kaiyami land of one Ramnath Mahton. Plot No. 6619 was recorded in the name of one Ramdas Mahto. According to the plaintiff, these lands were under the aforesaid tauzi No. 4268. The plaintiffs case was that Chhathu Missir died and it was Kamla Missir (son of Chhathu Missir) who came in possession of the proprietary interest in the aforesaid tauzi but the same was sold on 18-1-1933 in Execution Case No. 1433 of 1932 in execution of decree passed in S.C. C. Suit No. 2/2 of 1931 brought by one Paudhari Kuer against the said Kamla Missir. According to the plaintiff, the entire tauzi was purchased by the decree-holder (Paudhari Kuer) herself and the same having been comformed, the decree-holder obtained delivery of possession on 2-5-1935 and accordingly, the decree-holder Paudhari Kuer got her name entered is the Register-D also. The sons of aforesaid Kamla Missir subsequently filed one Title Suit being Title, Suit No. 126 of 1946 against Paudhari Kuer for getting the auction sale aside but the said Title Suit was dismissed on 11-9-1948.
4. In the meantime, according to the plaintiff in 1936, Paudhari Kuer had obtained one rent decree against the aforesaid Ram Nath Mahto and Ramdas Mahto and got the suit plots auction sold in Execution Case No. 481 of 1938 and Execution Case No. 1457 of 1937. Thus, according to the plaintiffs, the lands of khata No. 1884 were purchased by the decree-holder Paudhari Kuer and the lands of khata No. 1886 were purchased in auction sale by the plaintiff. They also obtained delivery of possession in respect of the aforesaid purchased lands on 11-1-1939 and 8-2-1939, respectively and the auction-purchasers accordingly, came in possession of the suit lands. The plaintiffs further case is that subsequently in Jeth 1348 Fasli, the plaintiff took oral settlement of the suit lands of khata No. 1884 from Paudhari Kuer on the basis of a receipt and came in possession of the total suit lands. The plaintiff also claimed to have acquired the proprietary interest of Paudhari Kuer in Tauzi No 4268 to the extent of 2 anna 2 p. by two registered sale deeds dated 17-6-1940 and got his name entered in the Register-D. There after, the plaintiff filed Rent Suit No. 1600 of 1956 against the aforesaid Rampath Mahton for realisation of rent of the remaining portion of plot No. 6616 and obtained a decree for the same. Thus, the plaintiff claimed to have been in possession of the suit lands all along. According to the plaintiff, there was interference by the defendants which necessitated the filing of the suit.
5. The suit was contested by the defendants and their case was that before the survey operation of 1910-11, there was a takhata of 25-11 acres of land (including the suit land) falling under tauzi No. 4268. Out of this tauzi No. 4268, subsequently, a separate tauzi was carved out as tauzi No. 2277 and an area of 1-71 acres of land was put in the new carved out tauzi in the new carved out tauzi in the name of one Deobasi Kuer and her mot
