Declaratory suits require seeking recovery of possession; a claim limited to declaration without further relief is not maintainable.

By the Court:-

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

1. Heard the learned senior counsel for the appellants.

2. This second appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 31.07.2017 passed by the learned District Judge-XII, Hazaribagh in Title Appeal No.15 of 2013 whereby and where under the learned District Judge-XII, Hazaribagh has dismissed the appeal on contest and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 12.03.2013, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hazaribagh in Title Suit No. 165 of 1996.

3. The brief fact of the case is that the plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of their title in respect of Schedule A of the suit property and cost of the suit.

4. The case of the plaintiffs in brief is that Preetam Mahto was the owner of the suit property. In the cadastral survey, the land was recorded in the name of his wife Most. Kudhni. After the death of Preetam Mahto, Kudhni and their son Lekho Mahto came in exclusive possession of the suit land. The plaintiffs pleaded that Kudhni died in the year 1926. Lekho Mahto, his son Bhaju and granddaughter Rewali Devi continued in possession over the entire lands of Khata No.9 paying rent to the ex-landlord and after vesting of Zamindari, paid rent to the State. The wife of Lekho namely Sugia sold the land measuring 7.45 units by virtue of registered deed of sale. Rewali and her sons are continuing in joint possession over the land but under separate title and they obtained rent receipts from the Sate in respect of the lands of Khata No.9, 10 and 1/80. The plaintiffs pleaded that on 18.06.1996, the defendants came across the sale deed bearing no. 1774/1940 executed by Kudhni and the said sale deed is a forged and fabricated document and claimed that the plaintiffs have derived title and possession of the suit land.

5. The defendant nos. 1 to 10 in their joint written statement challenged the maintainability of the suit on various technical grounds. The defendants denied the entire case of the plaintiffs and pleaded that Khudni acquired Khata No. 9 & 10 and the same was in her exclusive possession and accordingly the same was recorded in the cadastral survey settlement operation. The defendants pleaded that Most. Khudni, wife of Preetam Mahto executed the sale deed no. 1774 dated 09.05.1940 in favour of Mohan Mahto, Lokhan Mahto, Gyani Mahto, Moli Mahto and Haso Mahto for a consideration of Rs.300/- and the vendors were put in possession of the land sold and the sale deed is a valid one. The defendants pleaded that Most Khudni died in the year 1948 and on 09.05.1940, besides the said sale deed, she executed a registered Hibanama bearing registration no. 1773 in favour of Lekho Mahto, son of Bharat Mahto. Mohan Mahto died in the year 1944 leaving behind his wife and son Bajo Mahto, who is the defendant no.2, as his legal heirs and after the death of wife of Mohan Mahto, Bajo Mahto came in exclusive possession of the land purchased by Mohan Mahto. Similarly, Dhelo Mahto being the son and defendant no.10 of the suit, inherited the property of Haso Mahto. The five sons of Lokhan Mahto being defendant nos. 3 to 7 inherited the property of Lokhan Mahto after his death in the year 1950-52. Moli Mahto sold 0.06 acres of land to Hero Mahto by virtue of sale deed dated 20.05.1952 and after the death of Moli Mahto, his sons being Neru Mahto and Bago Mahto who are respectively the defendant nos. 8 & 9 inherited his property. Gyani Mahto, defendant no.1 was one of the original purchasers of the said sale deed. In her written statement,