In appeals concerning land ownership, the appellate court must address possession issues; possession is presumed to follow title, and failure to consider this may constitute a serious procedural error.

JUDGMENT :

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 15^th March 2016 (decree sealed and signed on 31^st March 2016) passed by learned District Judge-II, Chatra in Title Appeal No. 2 of 2013 whereby the learned District Judge-II, Chatra has dismissed Title Appeal No. 2 of 2013 and affirmed the judgment dated 15^th December 2012 and decree sealed and signed on 08^th January 2013 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)-II, Chatra in Title Suit No. 27 of 2007.

3. The appellants were defendants in the suit before the learned trial Court.

4. This appeal was admitted for hearing vide order 05^th February2019 on the following substantial question of law:-

“Whether the possession of the defendants have not ever been considered by the Trial Court or the Appellate Court?”

5. The plaintiff had filed Title Suit No. 27 of 2007 for adjudication on the right, title and interest of the plaintiff over the suit land. The plaintiff also prayed that his possession over the suit land be confirmed. Alternatively, it was prayed by the plaintiff that if he was dispossessed during the pendency of the suit or the plaintiff was found dispossessed by the Court, his possession over the suit land be restored through the process of the Court. The plaintiff also made a prayer that the defendants, their agents, servants or any other person in their behalf may be restrained from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff by a decree of permanent injunction.

6. The case of the plaintiff before the learned trial Court was as under:

(i) The plaintiff was rightful owner and possessor over the lands under khata No. 17 total plots 54 area 2.10 acre and khata No. 19 plot No. 318 area 0.02 acre of village Pachmo P.S. Itkhori, District Chatra as described in Schedule A of the plaint. The lands appertaining to khata No. 17 measuring an area total 8.35 acre of village Pachmo was recorded in last survey settlement as raiyati lands in the name of one Lalit Mahto son of Gudo Mahto and lands of khata No. 19 plot No. 318 having an area 0.24 acre of village Pachmo was recorded in the name of Hussaini Mian and others. All recorded raiyats entered into amicable oral partition of the lands of khata No. 19 and share of Lalit Mahto was carved out measuring an area of 0.08 acre out of 0.24 acres lands under khata No. 19 plot no. 318 of village Pachmo.

(ii) The recorded raiyat Lalit Mahto died leaving behind his two sons, namely, Pannu Mahto and Gopal Mahto, who became owner and possessor of the said property and Jamindari rent receipt was issued in the name of Pannu Mahto and others. Pannu Mahto dies issueless in the jointness with his brother Gopal Mahto @ Yadav and Gopal Mahto inherited the lands as sole survivor and successor of Lalit Mahto. Gopal Mahto died leaving behind his four sons namely, Haro Mahto, Somar Mahto, Udan Mahto and Heman Mahto. Haro Mahto also died issueless and thus right, title, interest and possession over the suit land of Lalit Mahto finally devolved upon the remaining sons of Gopal Mahto who possessed the same by paying rent to the State of Bihar and also obtained government rent receipt till 1989-90.

(iii) The plaintiff purchased an area of 2.10 acres of land appertaining to khata No. 17 and an area of 0.02 acres land appertaining to khata No. 19 plot No. 318 of village Pachano by virtue of registered sale deed of valuable consideration in the year 1993 vide deed No. 3091/93 from Somar Mahto, Udan Mahto and Heman Mahto, all sons of Gopal Mahto and since then the plaintiff became rightful owner and was in peaceful physical possession