Back
High Court Of Jharkhand
Judgename : VISHNUDEO NARAYAN
CHHABI DUSHADH - Appellant
Versus
BHUNESHWAR PANDEY - Respondents
A. F. A. D. 144 Of 1988
Decided On : 08/13/2003
Mutation Case - Land Dispute - B. L. R. Act - [Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act] - The court considered the evidence and found that Maharaj Mahto was the son of Jattu Mahto, the recorded tenant of Khata No. 14, and had right, title, interest, and possession of the suit land. The mutation proceeding was not considered as evidence of exclusion from the property. The suit for declaration of title was held maintainable without seeking further relief of recovery of possession.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff respondents filed suits for declaration that the suit plots were their occupancy raiyati land. The defendants claimed possession and right over the land. The trial court dismissed the suits, but the appellate court reversed the decision and decreed the suits.
Finding of the Court:
The appellate court found that Maharaj Mahto was the son of Jattu Mahto and had right, title, interest, and possession of the suit land. The court held that the mutation proceeding did not decide title and was not evidence of exclusion from the property. The suit for declaration of title was held maintainable without seeking further relief of recovery of possession.
Issues: Validity of the plaintiff's case, maintainability of the suits, subsisting title of the plaintiff, limitation and adverse possession, relief entitled to the plaintiff
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the plaintiff had a valid case and subsisting title to the suit lands. The suits were held maintainable, and the plaintiff was found entitled to the relief of declaration of their title to the suit lands.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed, and the impugned judgment of the appellate court was affirmed.
VISHNUDEO NARAYAN, J.
( 1 ) BOTH the appeals arise out of a common judgment and, therefore, they are being disposed of by this judgment.
( 2 ) THESE appeals at the instance of the defendants appellant are directed against the judgment and decree dated 27-7-1988 and 8-8-1988 respectively passed in Title appeal No. 44 of 1976 and 45 of 1976 by shri Bhikari Ram, 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Palamau whereby and whereunder both the appeals were allowed and the judgment and decree dated 18-9-1976 and 6-11-1976 passed in t. S. No. 79/41 of 1973/76 and 80/46 of 1973/76 by the 2nd Additional Sub-Judge, Palamau at daltonganj were reversed.
( 3 ) THE plain tiff respondents had filed the aforementioned suits for declaration that the suit plots appertaining to khata No. 14 situate in village Haradag Khurd, P. S. Nagar utari, District Palamau fully detailed in the schedule of the plaint of both the title suits is the occupancy raiyati land of the plaintiff respondents.
( 4 ) THE case of the plaintiff respondents in both the title suits aforesaid is similar in material particulars. The case of the plaintiff respondents, in brief, is that the land of khata No. 14 of village Hardag Khurd P. S. Nagar Utari, District Palamau stands recorded in the name of Jattu Mahto in the survey Record of Rights (Ext. D/1) and Jattu mahto was in possession thereof as owner in respect thereof and the said Jattu Mahto died five years after leaving behind his only son Maharaj Mahto as his heir. It is alleged that the wife of Jattu Mahto had predeceased him. After the death of Jattu Mahto, Maharaj mahto inherited the suit property and continued in peaceful possession thereof and the ex-landlord of village Harda Khurd filed return under the provisions of B. L. R. Act on the vesting of the estate showing the name of Maharaj Mahto as raiyat of khata no. 14 and the said Maharaj Mahto died after the vesting of the estate leaving behind his only son Vishwanath Mahto as his heir who has inherited the suit property and came in possession. The said Vishwanath mahto sold the entire land of khata No. 14 to Khakhnu Mahto, Budhan Mahto, Jhari mahto and Kailash Mahto by virtue of the sale deed (Ext. 1/b) dated 28-9-1957 and the aforesaid vendees came in possession thereof and continued in possession. The case of the plaintiff respondents further is that Khakhnu Mahto and others executed the sale deed (Ext. 1) dated 28-8-1968 in favour of plaintiff respondents Bhuneshwar pandey, the plaintiff of Title Suit No. 79 of 1973 in respect of 6. 76 acres of land of khata no. 14 and on the same day. Khakhanu mahto and others also executed a sale deed (Ext. 1/a) in favour of Srikant Pandey, the plaintiff of Title Suit No. 80 of 1973 in respect of the land of 6. 75 acres of Khata No. 14 aforesaid and both the plaintiff respondents came in possession over the suit land and continued in possession thereof peacefully without any interference and interruption. Both the plaintiff respondents, thereafter, applied for mutation of their names in respect of the lands purchased by them by virtue of the sale deeds aforesaid and Mutation Case No. 10 of 1968-69 was registered and the defendants appellant put an objection thereto which is to the effect that they stand entered in Register II of the Circle office, Nagar Utari in respect of the suit land as a result of which the plaintiff respondents were not mutated and the petition for mutation was rejected. It is alleged that entry of the names of the defendant appellants in Register II in respect of the suit land is illegal, unwarranted and without any basis and the order of rejection of mutation does not at all affect the right, title and interest as well as possession of the plaintiff respondents over the suit land but a cloud has been cast over the title of the plaintiff respondents and, hence, these suits.
( 5 ) ). The case of the defendants appellant, inter alia, is that Jattu Mahto had died issueless and he had no son, na
AI
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
