In landlord-tenant disputes, the absence of cross-appeals does not prevent appellate courts from re-evaluating and affirming findings based on evidentiary support establishing tenancy and ownership relationships.

JUDGMENT :

1.Heard Mr. Jai Prakash, learned senior counsel for the appellants and Mr. Shubham Sinha, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The instant second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 08.12.2005 (decree signed on 15.12.2005) passed by learned Additional District Judge-I, Lohardaga in Title Appeal No. 04 of 2002, whereby and whereunder, the first appellate court has dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment dated 23.03.2002 and decree dated 04.04.2002 passed by the learned trial court (Sub Judge-I, Lohardaga) in Title Suit No. 39/1997, whereby the suit of the plaintiff was decreed.

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal in a narrow compass is that original plaintiff – Kaleshwar Sao instituted a suit against Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Ltd. and others for declaration that there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Ltd. and plaintiff is entitled to receive rent with regard to the suit land mentioned in the Schedule of the plaint.

4. It is alleged that the plaintiff is the rightful owner and in possession of the lands appertaining to R.S. Khata No. 27, Plot No. 40, Area – 0.71 acres and lands appertaining to Khata No. 70, Plot No. 39, Area – 0.84 acres of Village – Jogna, P.S.- Senha, District – Lohardaga situated near Fuljhar river bridge. It is alleged that defendant Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Ltd. started construction of new bridge near Fuljhar river in or about March, 1988 and for the purpose of storing the construction materials, the defendants approached the plaintiff to let out the suit land on monthly rent of Rs. 500/-. It is alleged that the rent was fixed by the S.D.O. (Controller), Lohardaga vide Letter No. 898 dated 27.12.1989. Thereafter, the defendant constructed some rooms of asbestors roof for dumping construction materials etc. over the suit land and started paying rent to the plaintiff. The defendant paid the rent up till 05.07.1993. Thereafter, stopped payment of rent. Therefore, notices were issued to the defendant through registered post and also served personally by the plaintiff in the office of the defendant, then it was orally disclosed that some other persons are also demanding rent and unless plaintiff get his title declared by the competent court, no rent will be paid. Hence, this suit.

5. It is further alleged by the plaintiff that the suit land fell in the share of plaintiff through oral partition between the sons of Ramdu Sahu in the year 1967 and each co-sharer separated themselves by metes and bounds and enjoying their usufruct separately. It is further alleged that after death of Ramsewak Sahu, the lands allotted in the share of Ramsewak Sahu was further partitioned between Kauleshwar Sahu and Muneshwar Sahu.

6. Further case of the plaintiff is that after the oral partition, each co-sharer was enjoying separately their properties and were also selling their share to the knowledge of all concerned. Baleshwar Sahu has executed a registered sale deed in favour of Kauleshwar Sahu (plaintiff) with respect to lands of R.S. Khata No. 26, Plot No. 843, area - 0.11 acres, Plot No. No. 844, area – 0.39 acres vide Sale Deed No. 1016 dated 26.03.1976, Sale Deed No. 510 dated 14.02.1976 and Sale Deed No. 1588 dated 23.06.1981. Similarly, Baleshwar Sahu has also executed registered sale deeds in favour of other purchaser also.

7. It is further alleged that plaintiff’s grandfather Ramdu Sao was the ex-landlord of Village – Jogna, who acquired the lands of R.S. Khata No. 70, total area 6.71 acres jointly wi