Baban Lal and Others vs Collector and Others

Radha Mohan Prasad, J.—This appeal by the plaintiffs is against the judgment of reversal passed in Title Appeal No. 22 of 1992 by VIth Additional District Judge, Siwan setting aside the judgment passed by Subordinate Judge I, Siwan in Title Suit No. 34 of 1985.

Briefly stated the case of the plaintiff-appellants is that Mangani Lai, Jurhawan Lai and Muneshwar Dayal, the heirs of ex-landlord, settled 1 Bigha 13 katha 1 1/2 dhurs of land out of 2 Bigha 4 Katha 2 dhurs pertaining to plot No. 169 khata No. 689 with the plaintiffs in the year 1339 Fasli corresponding to calendar year 1932 A.D. and on the abolition of zam/ndar/submitted return in the name of plaintiffs, resulting in opening of Jamabandi in their name and they had been paying rent to Government of Biharwith respect of aforementioned land. The remaining 11 katha 10 dhurs land was settled with the plaintiffs on 18.11.1945 after execution of Hukumnama by Mathura Prasad Singh, son of ex-landlord Jodhan Prasad Singh and a practising lawyer at Chapra, but at the time of abolition of zamindari Mathura Prasad Singh submitted return at Patna and the same could not be sent either to Siwan District or Guthani Circle, therefore, no jamabandi could be prepared. Thereafter, plaintiffs filed an application for correction of Jamabandi. Karamchari and Circle Inspector gave favourable report, but Circle Officer, Guthani rejected the application and on appeal the D.C.L.R., Siwan dismissed it with an observation that the suit land was recorded as Pond and as such, is Shariat land vested in Government of Bihar. Hence, the plaintiffs filed suit for declaration of their title over the suit lands and the order dated 24.4.1984 and 24.5.1984 passed by Circle Officer and D.C.L.R., Siwan respectively be declared illegal and void.

The defendants in their written statement have stated that the land measuring 2 Bigha 4 katha 2 dhurs pertaining to plot No. 169 khata No. 689 was recorded as Gairmajarua Pokhara Malik and on the spot also there was pond and its vide without any sign of possession of the plaintiffs. However, for correction of jamabandi in relation to 11 katha 10 dhurs land plaintiffs had filed an application, which was registered as Case No. 12 of 1983-84 in which Circle Officer Guthani himself inspected the spot on 23.7.1984 after submission of report by of Karamchari and Circle Inspector, and did not find possession of the plaintiffs, hence, dismissed the said application.

The trial Court on consideration of the pleadings as well as evidence both oral and documentary adduced on behalf of the parties found that the plaintiffs have acquired title over the suit land by virtue of possession and acceptance of the rent by the ex-iandlord and, thus, decreed the suit. The lower appellate Court on appeal reversed the findings of the trial Court by holding that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any decree, hence, the present appeal by the plaintiffs.

It is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing of the appellants that the lower appellate Court has not assigned any reason while discarding the evidence of P.Ws. He further submitted that the lower appellate Court has failed to appreciate the findings of the trial Court recorded in paragraph 9 of its judgment that not only the P.Ws. rather the defendants in the written statement admitted the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land.

The lower appellate Court in paragraph 8 of its judgment considered the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff-appellants elaborately and found tangible contradiction in between the pleadings made in the plaint and the deposition of P.W. 8 Awadh Bihari Pandey in regard to the year of settlement. He further found that the very conduct of Mathura Prasad Singh, the ex-landlord, of leaving out names of plaintiffs in his return suggests that the so called settlement was not done, and this view was further strengthened from the conduct of the plaintiff Baban Lai (P.W. 15), who in his evidence stated that although he had come to know in the year 1958 about the omission of plaintiffs name in the return, but he filed application for correction of Jamabandi in the year 1984 i.e. after about 26 years of his knowledge. The lower appellate Court after discussing the evidence of the parties came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have failed to establish and prove the settlement of any part of the land pertaining to plot No. 169 khata No. 689 and their possession from before abolition of Zamindari. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff-appellants has failed to show any infirmity in the findings recorded by the lower appellate Court. Thus, in my opinion, the judgment of the lower appellate Court is well considered and does not warranted any interference in Second Appeal.

As the matter stands concluded by the findings of facts by the lower appellate Court based on evidence, this Court does to find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment, moreso, when no substantial question of law is involved. The appeal is, thus, dismissed summarily.