HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.:–This revision petition has been preferred under Section 115 of the C.P.C. against the order dated 26.08.2009 passed by learned Sub Judge-VII, Ara in Title Suit No. 533 of 2007 by which and whereunder he held that above stated Title Suit No 533 of 2007 was barred under Section 4(c) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956.

2. This revision petition was dismissed on 22.03.2013 due to non prosecution. However, the said revision petition was restored to its original file vide order dated 15.03.2017 passed in M.J.C. No. 3014 of 2016.

3. The brief fact, which lies to file this revision petition is that the petitioners brought Title Suit No. 533 of 2007 against the opposite parties for declaration of sale deeds dated 16.05.2006 and 28.09.2006, said to be executed by opposite 2nd party-defendant 2nd party in favour of opposite 1st party-defendant 1st party, as forged, fabricated and illegal on the ground that aforesaid sale deeds had been executed by defendant 2nd party-opposite 2nd party without having any legal right to execute the same and furthermore, for declaration of order dated 26.12.2007 passed by the Director, Consolidation, Bihar, Patna in Consolidation Revision Case No. 64 of 2007 illegal as well as without jurisdiction. They also sought relief for issuance of injunction against the opposite parties.

4. The case of the petitioners-plaintiffs before the court below was that Bashistha Narayan Lal son of Radha Balam Lal of village Sultanpur and Mahendra Prasad, son of Kailash Bihari Lal of village Baman Gaman PS. Barhara, District Bhojpur got executed settlement of 81 acre and odd lands from the then Zamindar in favour of their respective wives, namely, Fuljharo Devi and Parwati Devi and after settlement both the above stated ladies came in possession of the aforesaid land and started paying rent. Subsequently, the above stated Fuljharo Devi and Parwati Devi got partitioned the aforesaid joint property by way of family arrangement and each of them got 40 acre 78 decimal lands and came in possession of the allotted lands. They got mutated their name in respect of their respective lands. The above stated Parwati Devi sold 8 acre 93 decimal lands to original petitioner, namely, Asharfi Devi vide registered sale deed dated 25.03.1964 and accordingly, petitioner no. 1 came in possession of the aforesaid lands. The sons of aforesaid Parwati Devi transferred the remaining lands to some other persons and after that several transactions took place in respect of the aforesaid lands. The above stated lands of Parwati Devi contained in Khata no. 141 whereas three new khata i.e. khata no. 11, 178 and 162 were prepared in respect of the lands allotted to Fuljharo Devi and khata no. 178 was prepared in the name of defendants 3rd party-opposite 3rd party but wrongly, khata no. 11 was prepared in the name of Uma Shankar Lal and Hira Shankar Lal and subsequently, in chak khatiyan case no. 255 of 1974, all the aforesaid three khata were entered in the name of defendant 3rd party-opposite 3rd party but opposite 2nd party-defendant 2nd party fraudulently executed registered sale deed on 16.05.2006 in favour of defendant 1st party-opposite 1st party in respect of the lands mentioned in Schedule-1 and 2 of the plaint and thereafter, defendant 1st party-opposite 1st party got declared their right in consolidation record by getting the order dated 26.12.2007 passed by the Director, Consolidation, Bihar, Patna in Consolidation Revision Case No. 64 of 2007. Subsequently, they got mutated their name in revenue records and thereafter, the aforesaid suit was filed.

5. The defendant 1st party-opposite 1st party appeared in the aforesaid Title Suit No. 533 of 2007 and filed a petition under Section 4 (c) of Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 raising question regarding the maintainability of aforesaid suit. The learned court below having considered the sub

Click Here to Read the rest of this document