IMPORTANT POINT
A plaint must be deemed to disclose a cause of action if the statements therein, taken as true, allow for a claim to proceed, regardless of subsequent merits, as defined under CPC.

ORDER :

RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This Civil Revision application is filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as CPC) against order dated 24.04.2023 passed in the Title Suit No. 131 of 2022, by the Learned Sub-Judge I, Kishanganj whereby and where under the petition filed on behalf of petitioner under Order VII rule 11(a) of the CPC was rejected.

3. The case of the plaintiff in brief, is that a piece of land situated in Mouza Satal Pargana Surjapur, Elaka Thana and Sub Registry Bahadurganj, Thana no. 361, Touzi no. 1232, the then district Purnea, now Distt. Kishanganj, Kaimi Khata no. 76, R.S. Plot No. 182, area 2.64 acre, 183 area 0.06 acres 184 area 1.42 acre, 186 area 0.10 acre, 187 area 0.37 acre, 158 area 0.19 acre, 154/394 area 0.10 acres, 185 area 0.19 acres, total area 5.07 acres land was owned, possessed and recorded in the names of Satan Lal and Ratan Lal who transferred 5.38 acres of land including 5.07 acres of land to one Samsuzzaman and and Muzaffarul Bari to the extent of equal share through registered sale deed dated 12-01-1954. Further, Samsuzzaman and Muzzafarul Bari out of the said purchase land settled 4.46 acres of land in favour of the Md. Ilyas Ansari, the ancestor of the plaintiffs and defendant 2nd party and got registered deed of Quabuliyat bearing no. 160 dated 09-01-1970 and the settlee remained in settled possession throughout his life. Later the Kaimidars clarified the transfer of Kaimi right vide sale deed no. 4008 of 1973 in favour of one Shahid Hussain.

4. Plaintiff further stated that through Regd. deed no. 4009 of 1973, as per the custom prevailing in the local vicinity, the settlee Md. Ilyas settled 2.23 acres of land to one Majid Hussain. Majid Hussain continued that possession till his last breath and thereafter his heirs are in possession hence these 22 plaintiffs have no claim over that area, heirs of Majid Hussasin are not being made parties to the suit but the remaining 2.23 acres of the land is the subject matter of the suit and the detail description of the suit land described in the schedule of the plaint. The registered sale deed no. 4008 of 1973 executed by Kaimidar Muzaffarul Bari while transferring his kaimi right in favour of said Shahid Hussain the factum of Sikmidari settlement to Ilyas was clearly mentioned and in sale deed no. 2912 of 2005 and 2918 of 2005 the title and possession holders of the land adjacent to the suit land while executing sale deed in favour of the their purchasers they also mentioned the presence of Ilyas Ansari in one of the boundary which also proves that Ilyas Ansari since 09.01.1970 onwards remained in possession of the suit land.

5. Further it is stated in the plaint that Ilays Ansari died in the year 2010 and thereafter as per the custom prevailing in the locality plaintiffs and their brother defendant 2nd party inherited the Sikmi status / the occupancy right which they are continuing till date. As per the deed of Kaubuliyat datedd 09.01.1970 the settlee used to pay rent to the kaimidar Samshuzzman for several years but no receipt was granted and then the kaimidar of the suit land Shamsuzzaman, the ancestor of the defendant 1st party having settled in Kolkata did not bother to collect the rent under the Kabuliyat or to grant any receipt thereof. So, the plaintiffs and the defendant 2nd party wanted to pay the rent directly to the state, the plaintiffs and the defendant 2nd party in March 2016 filed an application before the Circle Officer Bahadurganj for Grant of Kaimi status under section 48D of the BIHAR TENANCY ACT , 1885.

6. Further it is stated in the plaint that the plaintiffs were aware of the law that there being no notification either in municipal area or Nagar Panchayat area for the applicability of section 48D of the BIHAR TENANCY ACT ,1885. The Circle Officer on 06.10.2016 through memo no. 784 issued a corr