The plaintiffs failed to establish title and possession over the suit land, and the suit was invalid due to non-joinder of necessary parties.

JUDGMENT :

Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants.

2. This Second Appeal, filed under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been preferred against the judgment of reversal dated 05.03.2020 passed by learned District Judge-IV, Koderma in Civil Appeal No.11 of 2016 whereby and where under the learned first appellate court reversed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs being Title Suit No.04 of 2010 filed in the court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-I, Koderma and allowed the appeal in part so far as the land described in Schedule -I of the plaint but dismissed the appeal in part with respect to the suit land described in Schedule -II of the land.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the plaintiffs filed Title Suit No.04 of 2010 in the court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-I, Koderma with a prayer for declaration of right, title and interest over the land described in Schedule I of the plaint and for confirmation of possession over the suit land. Further, the plaintiffs prayed for further reliefs to restrain the defendants from transferring or alienating the suit land and also to restrain their men and agents by permanently injuncting them from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land, cost of the suit and other reliefs.

4. The case of the plaintiffs in brief is that Doman Pandey, Daso Pandey and Gurdi Pandey are own brothers and sons of Jobi Pandey @ Pobi Pandey and they are having title and possession over the suit lands consisting of area 31 decimal in Khata No.539, plot No.5762 described in Schedule-I of the plaint. The same was recorded as ‘Gairmajurwa Khas’ land of “Samilat Malikan.” Doman Pandey was the owner of Khewat No.571, died issueless and his brother and co-Khewatdar namely Daso Pandey inherited the ‘Samilat Khewat No.57/4. Daso Pandey died leaving behind his two sons namely Akal Pandey and Dodi Pandey who inherited the said part. Dodi Pandey died leaving behind his two sons namely Govind Pandey and Ramchandra Pandey. Akal Pandey and Dodi Pandey both jointly settled the lands of Khata No.539 with Haro Devi-wife of Akal Pandey and Govind Pandey-son of Dodi Pandey by way of Hukumnama. Haro Devi and Govind Pandey both sold the lands of Khata No.539 to Bibi Rojani through registered sale-deed No.3524 dated 02.05.1962. Bibi Rojani sold the land to the plaintiff No.1 namely Suman Prasad through registered sale-deed No.7750 dated 20.09.1982. Suman Prasad got her name mutated vide Mutation Case No.134 of 1984. Bibi Rojani subsequently executed a registered deed of rectification No.7020 dated 05.09.1986 for correction of the sale-deed No.7750 dated 20.09.1982. The plaintiffs started construction of the boundary wall over the suit land on plot No.5762. The defendants made efforts to disposes the plaintiffs. A proceeding under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. was instituted. Again the defendants challenged the title of the appellants over the suit land. Hence, the plaintiffs filed Title Suit No.04 of 2010.

5. In their written-statement, the defendants challenged the maintainability of the suit on various technical grounds. They did not make any claim upon the land described in Schedule II of the plaint. They pleaded that Chaman Pandey-son of Nirpat Pandey was the Khewatdar of Khewat No.2/8 in Khewat No.66 and he died issueless. After the death of Doman Pandey and Chaman Pandey; Gurdi Pandey and Daso Pandey being the surviving sons of Jobi Pandey @ Pobi Pandey succeeded to the entire lands of Khewat No.57/1 and Samilat Khewat of 57/4. There was an oral partition in which the lands of Khewat No.57/1, 57/4 as well as Khewat No.2/8 of village Gumo was allotted to share of Doman Pandey. In the oral partition, the lands of Khata No.539 of Khewat No.57/1 fell in the share of Gurdi Pandey and Khewat No.2/8 of Khata No.66 was allotted to Daso Pandey. The defendants denied that Daso Pandey alone succeede