Janak Mahto and Others vs Mostt. Bigahi Devi and Others

Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.—This second appeal is against the judgment and decree dated 15th June, 2005 (decree signed on 28.06.2005) passed by the learned District Judge, Hazaribagh in Title Appeal No. 21 of 2003 dismissing the appeal and upholding the judgment and decree passed by learned Subordinate Judge-IV, Hazaribagh in Title Suit No. 66 of 1992.

The Appellants were the Defendants in Title Suit No. 66 of 1992. The said suit was filed by the Plaintiffs Respondents praying therein a decree for declaration of title and confirmation of possession or alternatively for recovery of possession of the suit property and also for grant of injunction restraining the Defendants from making any construction over the suit property.

The Plaintiffs'' case was that Bihari Mahto was settled raiyat of Village-Kekebar. The land of Khata No. 7 of the said village was recorded in the name of his father and uncle in the last survey. One Ibrahim Mian s/o Munna Mian of Village-Kekebar had taken raiyati settlement of Plot No. 99, measuring 90 decimals from the ex-landlord in the year 1932. Ibrahim Mian came in peaceful cultivating possession of the said land. He used to pay rent to the ex-landlord. Subsequently, Ibrahim Mian sold 90 decimals land of Plot No. 99 to Bihari Mahto, husband of Plaintiff No. 1 and father of Plaintiff Nos. 2 to 7, for valuable consideration, by virtue of registered sale deed dated 16.3.1983. Bihari Mahto came in possession of the purchased land. The land was mutated in the name of Bihari Mahto in Mutation Case No. 550/1984-85. Bihari Mahto also purchased 41 decimals of land of Plot No. 568 to the notice and knowledge of the Defendants. It has been stated by the Plaintiffs that though the Defendants have no right, title and possession over the Plot No. 99 and Plot No. 568 purchased by Bihar Mahto, they are trying to grab the suit land by applying force. They have also manufactured some documents for that purpose. The Defendants started to forcibly erect boundary wall towards east and north side of Plot No. 99, which led to proceeding u/s 144/145 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The Plaintiffs having no alternative remedy, filed the instant suit.

The Defendants contested the suit. In their written statement, they stated, inter alia, that the suit is barred under various provisions of law. The Defendants claimed their possession over the suit land. According to the Defendant-Chotu Mahto-father of Defendant No. 1, took settlement of land of Khata No. 1 of Village-Kekebar in 1927 from the co-sharer ex-landlord-Ledu Mahto, including the portion of the suit land. He also paid rent to the ex-landlord. After vesting of estate, he paid rent to the State. After their settlement, they have got raiyati right over Plot No. 99 and they have been cultivating the land for last 49 years. They have also constructed brick built compound wall. They are in peaceful possession of Plot No. 568 under Khata No. 1. That land is adjacent north on the western side of Plot No. 99. The Anchal Adhikari has found possession of the Defendants. The mutation in the names of Plaintiffs is illegal and without jurisdiction. The Plaintiffs'' claim is frivolous and baseless and the suit is liable to be dismissed.

On the said pleadings of the parties, learned trial court has framed several issues of fact as well as of law.

Both the parties adduced their oral and documentary evidences. Learned trial court, after detailed discussion and appraisal of evidences, came to the conclusion that the Plaintiffs have been able to prove their title over 90 decimals of Plot No. 99, but they failed to prove their title over Plot No. 568. He further held that the suit is not barred by limitation, adverse possession or any other provisions of law. Learned trial court decreed the suit in part holding the Plaintiffs'' title over the suit Plot No. 99 and directing the Defendants to remove the wall erected on portion of Plot No. 99 on their own cost and deliver the possession to the Plaintiffs.

Against the said judgment and decree, the Defendants filed appeal in the court of District Judge, Hazaribagh being Title Appeal No. 21 of 2003.

Learned lower appellate court heard the parties and appraised the evidence on record and considering the facts and law came to the independent finding that the Plaintiffs have been able to prove their title over 90 decimals of land of Plot No. 99. He further held that Plaintiffs could not prove their title over Plot No. 568. Learned lower appellate court upheld the findings of learned trial court holding that there was no infirmity or illegality in the judgment and decree of learned trial court warranting any interference. Learned District Judge confirmed the judgment and decree of learned trial court and dismissed the appeal.

The Defendants have assailed the judgment and decree of learned courts below on the ground that they have not properly considered and appraised the facts and evidences on record and have recorded wrong findings. They failed to properly appreciate the-oral and documentary evidences adduced on behalf of the Defendants-Appellants. They heavily relied on Exhibit-6, which is a document of mutation and erroneously decided the Plaintiff''s title on that basis. The Plaintiffs absolutely failed to prove their title even in respect of Plot No. 99. The impugned judgments and decrees of learned courts below are illegal and perverse.

I have heard Learned Counsel for the parties and considered the facts and material on record. On perusal of judgment of learned trial court, I find that learned trial court has thoroughly discussed all the relevant facts and has properly scrutinized and appraised the oral and documentary evidences on record and come to the conclusion that the Plaintiffs have been able to prove their title with respect to Plot No. 99. The court below has also held that the Plaintiffs could not prove their title over Plot No. 568.

Learned lower appellate court has also considered the facts and evidences on record in detail and recorded its independent findings concurring with the finding of facts arrived at by learned trial court.

The findings of learned courts below are based on due discussion and appraisal of the evidences on record. They have considered all the relevant aspects. I find no substance in the ground of the Appellants that the evidences of the Defendants were not properly appreciated and discussed.

The findings of facts have been concurrently arrived at by learned courts below on due discussion and appraisal of evidences cannot be interfered with by this Court in Second Appeal.

I find no ground giving rise to any substantial question of law to be framed and decided in this appeal.

This Second Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.