MUNGESHWAR SAHOO, J.:–The defendants 4th set have filed this appeal against the impugned judgment and decree dated 26.08.1983 passed by learned 4th Additional District Judge, Bhojpur, Ara in Title Appeal No.104 of 1973 dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 23.05.1973 passed in Title Suit No.204 of 1969/17 of 1972.

2. The plaintiffs-respondents filed the aforesaid suit for specific performance of contract for sale of raiyati interest in respect of the disputed lands executed by the defendants 1st set to 3rd set in favour of the plaintiffs on 26.11.1968. The plaintiffs also prayed that in case the court finds any difficulty in granting the above relief then a decree for refund of the earnest money of Rs.2500 be passed. The plaintiff’s further prayed for declaration that they have acquired occupancy rights as under tenants in respect of the disputed land.

3. The plaintiffs claimed the aforesaid relief mainly contending that the defendants 1st set to 3rd set are the owners of the property. The owners i.e., the raiyats resides far away from the villages where the property is situated whereas the plaintiffs are resident of village near to the property. 40 years prior to the institution of the suit, the defendant nos.1 to 17 made a Sikmi settlement in favour of the ancestors of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs since the time of settlement are coming in possession as Sikmi raiyat, as such, they have acquired occupancy rights as under-raiyat and the defendants 1st set to 3rd set have got only right to claim Sikmi rent. On 26.11.1968, the defendant nos.1 to 17 agreed to sell their raiyati rights in the disputed land to the plaintiffs for Rs.5,500 and executed the unregistered deed of contract. Earnest money of Rs.2,500 was paid. The sale deed was to be executed and registered within 30.11.1969. The plaintiffs repeatedly requested for execution of sale deed after taking balance consideration but the defendant nos.1 to 17 executed a sale deed in favour of the defendants 4th set(appellants). The sale deed is collusive, malafide and illegal. The purchasers had knowledge about the contract between the plaintiffs and the defendant nos.1 to 17. The plaintiffs were and are still ready and willing to perform their part of the contract.

4. The defendants filed separate written statement. The present appellants who were defendant nos.18 and 19 filed separate written statement contesting the suit alleging that they are bonafide purchasers of the suit land without knowledge of prior agreement. After purchase, they have been coming in cultivating possession of the land. The other defendant nos.1 to 17 challenged the genuineness of the agreement and readiness and willingness of the plaintiff. For the purpose of this Second Appeal, their case is not required to be gone into in detail.

5. The trial court decreed the suit recording a finding that the plaintiffs have acquired occupancy under-raiyati right in respect of the disputed lands and are in possession of the suit land as such, their possession was confirmed. So far prayer for specific performance of contract is concerned, it was dismissed. The present appellants filed title appeal. The appellate court recorded a finding that the appellants are purchasers in good faith for value and without any notice of any previous contract to sell and ultimately, dismissed the appeal.

6. At the time of admission on 09.08.1985, the following substantial questions of law were formulated:–

(a) Whether the plaintiffs-respondents can claim the benefit under Section 48C of the Bihar Tenancy Act in the facts and circumstances of the present case?

(b) Assuming the above question in favour of the plaintiffs whether their claim on the basis of Sikkimi possession was bound to be dismissed in view of the provision of Section 52A of the Bihar Tenancy Act?

7. The learned senior counsel, Mr. Roy appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the right of under-raiyat is not a civil right rather it is

Click Here to Read the rest of this document