Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
Gurusharan Sharma, J.
Kumar Ramswaroop Singh
Versus
Venkateshwar Singh
Appeal from Original Decree No. 332 of 1980 ;
Decided On : OCTOBER 20, 1997
LAND REFORMS - RAIYATI SETTLEMENT - PROOF - GENUINENESS OF RENT RECEIPTS - OPINION OF HANDWRITING EXPERT - RELEVANCE - BURDEN OF PROOF - ADMISSIBILITY OF SADA PARWANA AS EVIDENCE OF TITLE.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs claimed title over suit lands by virtue of raiyati settlement with defendants 1 and 2, who were landlords. Defendants denied the settlement and claimed title through partition and subsequent settlements. The trial court found in favor of the plaintiffs and decreed their suit.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the rent receipts granted by defendants 1 and 2 in favor of the plaintiffs were genuine and proved their raiyati interest in the suit lands. The court also held that the Sada Parwana produced by defendants 6 to 8 was not admissible as evidence of their title.
Issues: 1. Whether the rent receipts granted by defendants 1 and 2 in favor of the plaintiffs were genuine? 2. Whether the plaintiffs proved their raiyati interest in the suit lands? 3. Whether the Sada Parwana produced by defendants 6 to 8 was admissible as evidence of their title?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on the opinion of the handwriting expert examined by the plaintiffs to hold that the rent receipts were genuine. The court also noted that the defendants 1 and 2 did not come forward to deny the genuineness of the rent receipts in the suit. 2. The court held that the plaintiffs proved their raiyati interest in the suit lands on the basis of oral settlement coupled with acceptance of rent by the landlord and their actual possession thereon. 3. The court held that the Sada Parwana produced by defendants 6 to 8 was not admissible as evidence of their title as it was not registered.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed.
Gurusharan Sharma, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 26th April, 1980, passed by the Subordinate Judge, Daltonganj, in Title Suit No. 69 of 1969, whereby the suit was decreed holding the plaintiffs title over the suit lands in village Karui, P.S.Majhiaon, District Palamau, detailed in Schedules I and II to the plaint and the defendants were directed to give vacant possession thereof. The plaintiffs were also held entitled to withdraw a sum of Rs. 2,950A lying in deposit in the Magistrates Court at Garhwa in connection with Miscellaneous Case Nos. 71 and 157 of 1962 under Sec. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. The plaintiff Nos. 3 and 4 were full brothers and the plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 were their respective wives. According to the plaintiff Nos. 3 and 4, Kuar Duniya Dayal Singh, their agnatic relation was recorded as co-sharer-proprietor of the Milikiyat under Khewat No. 9 to the extent of 4 Annas 6 pies share therein, whereas they were co-sharers proprietors to the extent of 4 pies 10 kauries share in the Milkiyat under Khewat No. 3/1.
3. Kuar Duniya Dayal Sigh died leaving behind seven sons, namely, Mahadeo Singh, ancestor of the defendants 16 to 18, Shaligram Singh, father of the defendants 9 and 10, Ram Naresh Singh, father of the defendants 13 to 15, Ram badan Singh the defendant No. 1, Ram Sunder Singh, the defendant No. 2, Ram Dayal Singh, the defendant No. 11 and Sheo Dayal Singh, the defendant No. 12. The defendant Nos. 3 to 8 were junior members of the family of the defendants 1 and 2.
4. Under Khewat No. 9, Khata No. 106 stood recorded as Gairmazarua Malik and included plot No. 109. After death of Kuar Duniya Dayal Singh, there was a partition among among his sons including the properties under Khewat No. 9. However, his two sons, namely, the defendants 1 and 2 remained joint. Mahadeo Singh did not get any share in plot No. 109. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were allotted 13.50 acres on the north western portion in plot No. 109 and they orally settled the same alongwith other lands with the plaintiffs 1 and 2 sometime in the year 1945, while their respective husbands, namely, the plaintiffs 3 and 4 were lodged in Jail in connection with some criminal case. Pursuant to the settlement rent receipts written by the defendant No. 16 and duly signed by the defendants 1 and 2 were granted to them. The defendant Nos. 11 and 14 also settled some lands with the plaintiffs 1 & 2.
5. The plaintiff No. 3 was released from the jail custody first and thereafter he claimed to have resumed Khas possession of 1.50 acres Gairmazarua Malik land in plot No. 177 in his own right as co-sharer-landlord of khewat No. 10. The said portion of plot No. 177 was adjacent to the portion of plot No. 109, already settled with the plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2. The plaintiffs 3 and 4 also took settlement of some lands from the defendant No. 12 and purchased some lands from the defendant No. 15 including 0.50 acre land in plot No. 109. All those lands acquired by the plaintiffs 1 to 4 were amalgamated and formed one block on the spot.
6. They further claimed that at the time of vesting of Zamindari in the State of Bihar under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 the plaintiffs names were shown by the ex-landlords as raiyats over the lands in question. However, a proceeding under Sec. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of the suit lands was decided against the plaintiffs and so they filed the present suit.
7. Three sets of written statements were filed in the suit one on behalf of the defendant No. 4, another on behalf of the defendants 6 to 8 and third on behalf of the defendants 9 and 10.
8. According to the defendant No. 4, the total 35.25 acres of land of plot No. 109 was partitioned near about in the year 1933, wherein Mahadeo Singh and Shaligram Singh jointly got 8.28 acres. By that time Ram Naresh Singh was dead and so the rest 26.97 acres were left joint among the four brothers
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
