Second appeal against dismissal of title suit claiming land under Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act. Court upheld concurrent findings below that appellants failed to prove title via Basgit purcha and were never in possession of disputed land.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Second Appeal No.264 of 2009
======================================================
.... .... Appellant/s
Versus
Dukha Sah Son of late Ram Khelawan Sah resident of village Makdumpur Sankhi, Distt Sitamarhi.
.... .... Respondent/s
====================================================== Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Sachchidanand Chaudhary Mr. Alok Kumar Jha
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER
13 08-05-2013 1. This is a second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 12.2.2009 passed in T.A. No. 18 of 2001 by learned Additional District Judge, FTC VII, Sitamarhi, whereby he dismissed the first appeal of the appellants and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 18.4.2001 and 28.4.2009 respectively passed by learned Munsif, Sitamarhi in T. S. No. 90 of 1994.The parties in the present order, have been described as per their position in the suit.
Patna High Court SA No.264 of 2009 (13)
2 / 11
Patna High Court SA No.264 of 2009 (13)
3 / 11
as they were privileged persons within the meaning of the Act and having their residence only on the said portion of the land. On the basis of their application the Anchal Adhikari, Riga, the Collector under the Act, registered case No. 160/65-66 and after proper enquiry granted Basgit purcha and fixed rent. They started paying rent and receiving rent receipts. According to the plaintiffs, they thus, became raiyat of the State of Bihar and acquired possession over the said area of 19 decimal.
Patna High Court SA No.264 of 2009 (13)
4 / 11
the Consolidation Officer with an observation that Basgit purcha so granted would remain as that was and the defendant would be compensated for that. On remand, the case was registered as case No. 55 of 1986 before the Consolidation Officer, Riga who after hearing the parties and making local inspection found 16 decimal of R.S. Plot No. 1582 in possession of the plaintiffs and vide order dated 2.1.1988 allowed 16 decimal of R.S. Plot No. 1582 to be recorded in the name of the plaintiffs and the defendant family was given some other land. On the basis of the order dated 2.1.1988, chak Khatiyan in respect of 16 decimal of land were prepared in the name of the plaintiffs as mentioned in Schedule I of the plaint. The descendants of said Ram Khelewan Sah preferred appeal against the order dated 2.1.1988 before the Deputy Director, Consolidation. Learned Deputy Director, Consolidation, however, vide his order dated 19.7.1989 allowed only 7½ decimal of land to be retained by the plaintiffs and rest was given to the Ram Lakhan Sah, the father of the defendant. The appellate order dated 19.7.1989 was challenged by the plaintiffs vide revision No. 3339 of 1989. The said revision petition also stood dismissed in default. A restoration petition was also filed but that too could not be pressed. Only thereafter the defendants started interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs
Patna High Court SA No.264 of 2009 (13)
5 / 11
and they forcibly dispossessed the plaintiffs from 8½ decimal of land of R. S. Plot No. 1582 from the east mentioned in Schedule II of the plaint. It was in this circumstance that the suit vide Title Suit No. 90 of 1994 was filed.
Patna High Court SA No.264 of 2009 (13)
6 / 11
claim R.S. Plot No. 1582. The defendant denied that there was no such order passed by the Joint Director in case No. 1446 of 1983 allowing the defendant to remain on the said 19 decimal of R.S. Plot No. 1582 and to compensate the defendant by giving him some different land. The defendant questioned the order dated 2.1.1988 passed in Case No. 55 of 1986 of the Consolidation Officer and supported the order passed by the Deputy Collector, Consolidation in Appeal No. 34 of 1988. The defendant asserted that the plaintiffs were never in possession over eight decimal of Schedule II land which was settled in the name of father of the defendant by ex-landlord in the year 1945 whereafter the family had been coming in possession over the same continuously. They denied the story of possession and dispossession as asserted by the plaintiffs.
Patna High Court SA No.264 of 2009 (13)
7 / 11
then ex-landlord of Tauji No. 1058, namely, Smt. Sonman Devi granted a Khista Patta dated 5.1.1945, after settlement he started cultivating and paying rent and later on constructed pucca house over a portion of 10 katha plot and residing in it. They claimed that during the revisional survey R.S.P. No. 1485 ( 14 decimal) R.S.P. No. 1586( 14 decimal) and RSP No. 1587( 14 decimal) were properly prepared but an area of 8 decimal were wrongly included in the RSP No. 1582 which could not be detected by the defendant‟s father earlier so no steps was taken for correction of the same. After knowing about it during consolidation, the defendant took steps for correction.
5. Whether the order dated 19.7.1989 passed by the Deputy Director Consolidation in Consolidation appeal No. 34 of 1988 is illegal and without jurisdiction?
6. Whether the story of possession and dispossession as alleged by the plaintiff is true?”
Patna High Court SA No.264 of 2009 (13)
8 / 11
suit land detailed under Schedule II of the plaint. From the judgment of the learned trial Court it appears that the plaintiffs did not bring on record even the original Basgit purcha as evidence, said to have been issued in their favour which was the foundation of their case, claiming title over the suit land. It further appears that certified copy of the Basgit purcha which was exhibited as Ext.3 did not show the date of institution and the order in column 4 and 5. In view of this and other materials available on record, learned trial Court held that the plaintiffs had not been able to prove their title over the suit land, detailed under Schedule II of the plaint on the basis of the alleged purcha. In view of such finding, learned trial Court observed that the order dated 19.7.1989 passed by the Deputy Director, consolidation in Appeal No. 34 of 1988 was not required to be declared as illegal and without jurisdiction. Dealing with the story of possession and dispossession with regard to which issue no.6 was framed, learned trial Court held that the story was not true after analyzing in detail the evidence of the plaintiffs witnesses and defendant witnesses.
Patna High Court SA No.264 of 2009 (13)
9 / 11
appellate Court after analyzing the evidence on record concluded that the plaintiffs could not prove as to who was the landlord from whom his father had taken settlement, whereas on the other hand, the defendants filed certified copy of Khatiyan to show that R.S. Plot No. 1085 admeasuring 1 acre 38 decimal was under possession of Mahim Singh (Ext. B/3) and after that it came in possession of Laliteshwar Pd. Singh (minor) under guardianship of his mother Sonman Devi from whom the defendant‟s father took settlement of suit land on 5.1.1945 on payment of Nazarana of Rs. 50/- which was confirmed by Smt. Sonman Devi who granted Khista Patta ( Ext.D). Learned first appellate Court concurred with the findings of the learned trial Court on the point of possession and dispossession also and dismissed the appeal.
Patna High Court SA No.264 of 2009 (13)
10 / 11
Patna High Court SA No.264 of 2009 (13)
11 / 11
courts below are contrary to evidence or such findings are without evidence. Counsel for the appellants has thus, failed to assert that the concurrent findings of facts of the Courts below suffered on perversity.
(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J)
Arun Kumar
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the concurrent findings of fact that appellants lacked title and possession are perverse or without evidence?
Whether the suit land recorded in the name of State of Bihar could be settled under the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1947?
Whether the second appeal raises any substantial question of law warranting interference?
Maheshwar Sah
Chaitu Sah
Dukha Sah
Chakradhari Sharan Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
