This appeal is against the judgment and decree dated 6.3.2008 passed by learned Additional District Judge, F.T.C -IX, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur whereby learned lower appellant Court has upheld and affirmed the judgment dated 11.12.2002 and decree (decree signed dated 19.12.2002) passed by learned Munsif, Ghatsila in T. S. No. 8/98.

2. The defendants are the appellants. The suit filed by the plaintiffs was decreed by learned Trial Court and the decree was affirmed by learned lower appellate Court.

3. The plaintiffs had filed suit for declaration of their right, title, interest and recovery of possession over the suit land.

4. The admitted claim of the plaintiffs is that they are the descendants of the recorded tenants of the land appertaining to Khata No. 87, Plot Nos. 572, 573 & 570, measuring an area of 0.03 Decimals of Village -Khairbani, P.S -Shyamsunderpur, District - Singhbhum East.

5. According to the plaintiffs, the suit land was forcibly encroached upon by the defendants. The defendants have their residential house adjoining the suit land and they illegally amalgamated the suit land with their adjoining land, which gave rise to the dispute. In the year 1995, the dispute led to a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C which was later on converted into a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. Then the plaintiffs filed the instant suit for the aforesaid reliefs.

6. The defendants appeared and contested the suit. In their written statement, the defendants took the plea that they are in continuous possession of the suit land and they have perfected their right title over the same. The defendants admitted that the suit land was recorded in the survey record, finally published in the year 1964, in the name of the predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiffs. But according to them, the entry is wrong.

7. Learned Trial Court framed several issues on the basis of the said pleadings.

8. Both the parties led their evidences, oral and documentary.

9. Learned Trial Court after thorough appraisal of the facts, evidences and materials on record came to the finding that the plaintiffs proved their right, title over the suit land and that the defendants could not establish their title by adverse possession. However, learned Trial Court has wrongly mentioned that the amended Articles 64 & 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, brought by Bihar Regulation–I, 1969, which amends the period 30 years in place of 12 years in the cases of the members of the Scheduled Tribe, is applicable in the instant case. Learned Trial Court came to the finding that the suit is not barred by adverse possession. Learned Trial Court, thus, decreed the plaintiffs’ suit.

10. Against the judgment and decree of learned Trial Court, the defendants appellants filed appeal in the Court of learned District Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur being Title Appeal No. 4/2003. The said appeal was finally heard and disposed of by learned Additional District Judge, F.T.C -IX, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur.

11. Learned lower appellate Court heard the parties and considered the facts, evidences and materials on record and discussed the same in detail.

12. After thorough appraisal and discussion of the facts, evidences and materials on record and also taking into consideration the relevant provisions of law, learned lower appellant Court recorded his own independent findings holding that the plaintiffs have got title over the suit land and the defendants have failed to establish their hostile possession. The defendants have even not specifically pleaded about perfection of their right, title by adverse possession.

13. Learned lower appellate Court, in his conclusion, concurred with the findings of facts arrived at by learned Trial Court and dismissed the appeal.

14. The defendants have challenged the said judgment and decree of learned lower appellate Court mainly on the grounds that the Courts below have failed to consider the admitted continuous possession of the defendants over the suit lan

Click Here to Read the rest of this document