Concurrent findings of fact by lower courts cannot be interfered with unless they are perverse or irrational.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

2. This second appeal has been preferred under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree of affirmance dated 27.08.2019 passed by the learned District Judge-II, Jamshedpur in Civil Appeal No. 26 of 2017 whereby and where under, the learned first appellate court has dismissed the appeal.

3. The brief fact of the case is that the plaintiff filed Eviction Suit No. 256 of 1989 in the court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-I, Jamshedpur with the prayer:

(i) for a decree to be passed in favour of the plaintiff declaring the title of the plaintiff over the suit land and the erroneous record of right of the suit land in the name of pro-forma defendant nos. 3 and 4 has no way affected the right, title and interest of the plaintiff and further settlement of suit land under Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1947 is illegal and contrary to law and the same does not bind the plaintiff and also for decree of khas possession of the plaintiff.

(ii) injunction and cost of the suit.

4. The case of the plaintiff is brief is that the suit land formerly belonged to recorded tenant Mangal Bhumij and others. They were unable to cultivate the land and pay rent to the proprietary; so they surrendered the land on 17.01.1941 by registered instrument in favour of the Raja Jagdish Chandra Dev Dhabaldev. The original plaintiffs’ father-in-law- late Moti Lal Mukhopadhyay made the prayer and the said land of 11 decimals was settled to the original plaintiffs’ father-in-law by Raja of Dhalbhum Estate by a indenture executed on 26.03.1942 having deed no. 2147 dated 13.07.1942 and the father-in-law of the plaintiff was put in possession of the said land. On 12.01.1951 the father-in-law of the plaintiff made an application to Raja of Dhalbhum Estate for extension of the settlement and it was duly granted. In or about 1980 the father-in-law of the plaintiff died and thereafter the plaintiffs’ husband inherited the suit property was in cultivating possession over the same till his death. The husband of the plaintiff died in the year 1983. Thereafter, the plaintiff inherited the suit property. Due to old age, the plaintiff could not take up the cultivation of the said land and after death of her husband the lands could not be cultivated. In May, 1989 the plaintiff engaged plough man to cultivate the land and while the plaintiff was getting the lands to be ploughed, the principal defendants started obstruction which led the plaintiff to file the suit. The principal defendants have occupied the said plots of the plaintiff hence, the plaintiff filed the suit. The plaintiff further pleaded that the principal defendants have got no right, title and interest over the suit land.

5. The defendant-respondent no. 1 and the original defendant no. 2 filed their joint written statement challenging the maintainability of the suit on various technical grounds. The defendants pleaded that the plaintiff is guilty of suppressing the material facts. The defendant nos. 3 to 5 being pro-forma defendants did not appear before the trial court or the appellate court.

6. On the basis of rival pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court settled the following seven issues:

(I) Whether the suit of plaintiff is maintainable in its present form?

(II) Whether the plaintiff has arose valid cause of action for filing the suit?

(III) Whether the suit is barred by law of specific relief and limitation act?

(IV) Whether the suit is barred for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary party?

(V) Whether the plaintiff has acquired right, title and interest over the suit land through deed no. 2147 dated 13.07.42 and further extension of settlement dated 12.01.51?

(VI) Whether the suit is liable to be decreed?

(VII) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get any relief or reliefs as claimed for?

7. In support of his case, the plaintiff examined altogether three witnesses and proved the documents