Sitaram Mahto and Ors. Vs Khirod Mahato and Ors.

The judgment and decree dated 16.03.2015 (decree signed on 30.03.2015) passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge 1^st , Bokaro in Title Appeal No. 11/2012 by which the judgment and decree dated 02.03.2012 (decree signed on 15.03.2012) passed by learned Sub Judge IV, (Civil Judge, Sr. Division), Bokaro, in Title Suit No. 22/1998 has been affirmed is under challenge in the instant second appeal.

The appellants are the Plaintiffs who filed suit for declaration of right, title and interest over the property detailed in Schedule-A of the plaint and the same has been dismissed by the concurrent finding of facts recorded by both the learned courts below.

Plaintiff(s) claims title over the suit property on the basis of inheritance being the heir and descendant of the recorded tenant, Bhikhari Mahato, whereas the case of the defendant(s) is that the recorded raiyat, Bhikhari Mahato had surrendered the land by registered deed of surrender on 26.05.1925. After the said surrender, the land, in question, was settled by the ex-landlord on 27.05.1925 by an unregistered deed of settlement (Ext. H) followed by the rent receipts issued by the ex-landlord in favour of the settlee on payment of rent. After vesting, the Government rent receipts were issued (B/12 to B/19).

2

Both the learned courts below held that the predecessor in interest of the plaintiff(s) had surrendered their raiyati interest by registered deed of surrender of the land to the ex-landlord and thereafter the land had been settled to the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants who were in continuous possession of the suit land.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has assailed the impugned judgment passed by the learned courts below on the ground that the plaintiffs have taken a specific plea regarding the registered deed of surrender in favour of the ex-landlord to be forged and fabricated. No finding has been recorded and further the record of right continued to be in the name of Bhikhari Mahato.

The registered deed of surrender is of the year 1925 and being modern 30 years old document, there is presumption in favour of its due execution under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act. It has been held in AIR 1923 PC114 that if document found registered and certificate of endorsement under Section 60 endorsed thereon. Presumption arises under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, that official acts have been regularly performed and the document was duly presented by person duly authorized under law.

It was incumbent on the part of the plaintiff(s) to have rebutted these presumptions which they had utterly failed to place it by leading cogent evidence regarding it.

Under the circumstance, this Court is of the view that there does not exist any substantial question of law for admitting the instant Second Appeal in view of the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the learned courts below.

Accordingly, the instant Second appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission.

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J . )

Sandeep/uploaded

¶64

3

Sitaram Mahto and Ors. v. Khirod Mahato and Ors.