Sohrai Mahato and Others vs State Of Bihar

Anil Kumar Choudhary, J

Heard the parties.

This Second Appeal, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 27.09.2016 passed by learned District Judge-I, Seraikella-Kharsawan in Title Appeal No.05 of 2008 by which the learned First Appellate Court dismissed the Title Appeal and confirmed the judgment dated 06.03.2008 passed by learned Subordinate Judge- I, Seraikella in Title Suit No.17of 1998.

The brief facts of the case is that the plaintiffs filed Title Suit No.17 of 1998 for declaration of right, title, interest and confirmation of possession over the suit land described in schedule ‘B’ of the plaint. The case of the plaintiff is that one Bansi Mahato took settlement of the land from the then ex-landlord Shyama Prasad Singh and Tara Prasad Singh. This settlement was made in the year 1361 B.S. The landlord granted settlement receipt and also delivered possession of the land. Bansi Mahato developed and improved the condition of the land by cultivating over the same. After the death of Bansi Mahato, plaintiffs came in physical possession of the land. After vesting of the intermediary interest to the State of Bihar as per Bihar Land Reforms Act, the Government of Bihar also acknowledged Bansi Mahato as tenant under the Government and also realized rent and granted receipts in favour of Bansi Mahato and thus, Bansi Mahato was treated as a Raiyat under the Government. The plaintiffs have no knowledge about the wrong entry made in Revenue Survey Settlement Operation prior to November, 1994. For the first time in November, 1994, the Circle Karamchari threatened the plaintiffs to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit land. The plaintiffs resisted it. A notice under Section 80 of Code of Civil Procedure was sent to the Deputy Commissioner. After expiry of the time stipulated in the notice, the suit was filed.

The defendants, in their written-statement besides taking the plea about non-maintainability of the suit on various technical grounds, pleaded that the claim of the plaintiffs is a false one; based on manufactured documents. The alleged ex-landlord in fact, never possessed the land in question. After vesting of the intermediary interest under Bihar Land Reforms Act, the land of the ex-landlord including the suit property vested to the State of Bihar. Bansi Mahato never mutated his name in the serista of ex-landlord or in the serista of the Government nor paid the rent to anyone. The suit land is recorded in the name of State of Bihar (now Jharkhand).

In view of the rival pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court settled the following eight issues:-

(I) Whether the suit is maintainable?

(II) Have plaintiffs valid cause of action?

(III) Is the suit barred by Limitation and under the Specific Relief Act and want for notice U/s 80 C.P.C.?

(IV) Whether the 16 Bighas of land in the C.S. plot No.90/A under C.S. Khata No.151 was settled with Bansi Mahato by the then Ex-landlord and in token such settlement issue receipt in favour of Bansi Mahato and Bansi Mahato came in possession to the settled land on payment of rent to the Ex-landlord?

(V) Whether the suit property was in actual physical possession of Bansi Mahato and after vesting the State Govt. plaintiff was recognized as tenant under him?

(VI) Whether the plaintiffs have valid right, title, interest and possession over the suit land?

(VII) Whether the defendant State has acquired right, title, interest and possession over the suit property on the strength of entries made in the Record of Rights in Revisional Survey?

(VIII) Are the plaintiffs entitled to get any relief or reliefs as prayed?

In support of their case, the plaintiff altogether examined six witnesses and proved the documents which have been marked Ext.1 to Ext. 9. From the side of the defendant, three witnesses were examined.

The learned trial court first took up issue Nos.(I), (II) and (III) together and after considering the materials in the record, came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have failed to establish the cause of action so, there is no cause of action and the cause of action is vague and imaginary. The learned trial court also held that the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation and thus, the suit is not maintainable.

The learned trial court next took up issue Nos. (IV), (V) and (VI) together and after considering the evidence in the record, came to the conclusion that the suit land was never settled to Bansi Mahato the father of the plaintiffs by the then ex-landlord. The learned trial court did not believe the settlement receipt including the map and observed that the same is not reliable. It came to the conclusion that Bansi Mahato never came in possession of the suit land and State Government never recognized Bansi Mahato as a tenant. The learned trial court further considered that the plaintiffs failed to prove the mutation of the name of Bansi Mahato in the serista of the ex-landlord or the serista of the State Government and considered the settled principle of law that the plaintiff has to prove its own case and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has no valid right, title, interest and possession over the suit land and therefore, the revisional survey which is completed in the year 1964 in the name of State of Bihar, has been opened in the Khata rightly and answered the issues accordingly.

The learned trial court lastly took up issue No.(VIII) and held that the plaintiff is not entitle to any relief and dismissed the suit.

Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 06.03.2008 passed by the Sub Judge-I, Seraikella in Title Suit No.17 of 1998, the plaintiffs/appellants preferred Title Appeal No.05 of 2008 in the court of District Judge-I, Seraikella-Kharswan which was ultimately heard and disposed of by the learned First Appellate Court by the impugned judgment and decree dated 27.09.2016.

The learned first appellate court framed the following points for determination:-

(a) whether the plaintiff has valid, right, title and interest over the suit lands or not?

(b) whether the plaintiff has valid cause of action for the suit or not? and

(c) whether the suit is hopelessly time barred or not?

The learned first appellate court, considering the evidence in the record, came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs/appellants have failed to prove their right, title and interest over the suit land. They have no valid cause of action for the suit and the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned first appellate court could not appreciate the materials in the record in their right perspective and committed a gross error in rejecting the Ext. 8 which was the certified copy of the Khatiyaan on the ground that it appeared to be fabricated. It is next submitted that both the courts below have committed a gross error by holding that the suit is barred by limitation. Hence, it is submitted that the judgment and decree passed by both the courts below be set aside after framing appropriate substantial question of law.

Having heard the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants and after going through the materials in the record, this Court finds that the Ext. 8 which was the certified copy of the C.S. Khatiyaan, was contradictory as half of the portion was saying something and the half of the portion was saying another thing and it is apparent that both the papers were pasted jointly and cleverly which was visible in the naked eye to the court concerned and for such cogent reason, both the courts below have not accepted the Ext. 8, hence, this Court do not find any perversity in such finding.

So far as the contention of the appellants that both the courts erred by holding that the suit is hopelessly barred by time is concerned, this Court finds that for cogent reasons, as discussed in detail in the judgments passed by the courts below, the courts below have returned the concurrent finding of fact that the plaintiffs have failed to establish their right, title, interest or possession over the suit land. The undisputed fact remains that in the year 1964, during the revenue survey operation, the land has been recorded in the name of State of Bihar. The suit was filed on 23.05.1998. So, under such circumstances, this Court also do not find that any error was committed by either of the courts below in holding that the suit was hopelessly barred by limitation.

Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that there is no substantial question of law, involved in this appeal.

Accordingly, this appeal, being without any merit, is dismissed.