CAV ORDER

1. Heard Mr. Binod Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Arvind Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This Second Appeal has been preferred by the defendants/appellants/appellants against the judgment and decree of affirmance dated 12.01.2016 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-V, Saran at Chapra in Title Appeal No.31 of 2006.

3. The matter arises out of Eviction Suit No. 1 of 2002 which was filed by the plaintiffs/respondent 1st set against defendants/appellants/appellants as well as respondent 2nd set only for their eviction on the ground of default-in-payment of rent by the defendants and bona fide personal requirement of the plaintiffs for this said suit premises and also for arrears of rents.

4. The case of the plaintiffs is that the defendants is the tenant of the suit premises. The premises, in question, originally belonged to the ancestor of the plaintiffs which is evident from Revisional Survey Khatiyan. The ancestor of the plaintiffs let out the suit premises which is standing over Plot no. 1091 on monthly rent of Rs. 7/- per month in December, 1938 to the ancestor of the defendants. The ancestor of the defendants were residents of Mauza Barbatta, P.S. Sonepur, District- Saran. The defendants paid rent till 1967. After that whenever rent was asked, they avoided the payment of the same and gave assurance for payment of the same. In September, 1969, it has come to the knowledge that Parmeshwar Singh and Bhagwat Singh got rent receipts in respect of plot no. 1091, 1092 & 1088. Thereafter, Basgit Singh and Mangal Singh, ancestor of the plaintiffs filed objection before the Circle Officer, Sonepur and Jamabandi Correction Case No. 4 of 1970- 71 was registered for correction of Jamabandi and fixation of rent. The Circle Officer sent the record to D.C.L.R., who remanded the same to the Circle Officer. The Circle Officer got influenced by the ancestor of the defendants that Plot no. 1091 area 2 katha, plot no. 1092 area 16 dhurs, total area 2 katha 16 dhurs are in occupation of ancestor of the defendants. It was further stated that plot no. 1088 area 11 dhurs and plot no. 1091 area 19 dhurs were said to be in occupation of Basgit Singh and Mangal Singh and the report was sent to D.C.L.R. The said Basgit Singh and Mangal Singh filed Jamabandi Appeal No. 11 of 1973-74 which was allowed. Against the said order, Bhagwat Singh and Ram Naresh Singh, ancestor of the defendants preferred Case No. 198 of 1976-77 before the Commissioner, Tiruhat Division. The matter was ultimately disposed of on the direction of Hon’ble High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2735 of 1999. The Appeal No. 11 of 1973-74 was decided on 14.02.2002 in favour of the plaintiffs. It is further case of the plaintiffs that the defendants claimed Plot no. 1091 on the basis of oral sale in 1938 from the ancestor of the plaintiff for Rs. 99/-. It is further contended that the ancestor of the defendants were tenant in the said house. Rent of the suit premises till 1999 has become time barred and the plaintiffs were engaged in Jamabandi case, therefore, they could not institute case for realisation of arrears of rent and for eviction from the house from the suit premises. The family of the plaintiffs has increased and they have personal necessity for the suit premises.

5. On summon, defendant nos. 1 to 6 appeared and filed their written statement and defendant nos. 9 to 11 filed their separate written statement and challenged the title of the plaintiffs.

6. The specific case of the defendants is that Parmeshwar Singh being the Karta of joint family of defendant nos. 3 to 7 orally purchased 2 katha of Plot no. 1091 for consideration of Rs. 99/- from east and Plot no. 1092 area 16 dhurs from Jhotan Singh and Subhlal Singh and came in possession over the same. After purchase of the said land through oral, Parmeshwar Singh and Bhagwat Singh constructed house over part of the oral purc