ANTHONY TIGGA Vs. SHIBNARAYAN BHUMIJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against the Judgement dated 25.09.2014 (decree sealed and signed on 05.11.2014), passed by District Judge VI, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Title Appeal No. 53 of 2009 whereby Judgment dated 29.08.2009 (decree sealed and signed on 04.09.2009), passed by Sub Judge-VI, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum in Title Suit No. 41 of 2001 has been upheld and the appeal stood dismissed.

(2.) Plaintiffs are appellants and suit was brought by them for declaration of title and confirmation of possession with respect to suit land. Land measuring 0.111/2 Acre of Don Land of Survey Plot No. 528, under Survey Khata No. 100 of Mouza Patamda, Survey Thana No. 140 was allegedly purchased by the plaintiffs jointly through a registered Sale Deed No. 2839 executed by Gangadhar Sardar for valuable consideration. Vendor had already obtained permission of Deputy Collector, Jamshedpur under Section 46 of CNT Act. Plaintiffs came into possession over the suit land and mutated their names in the Circle Office, Patamda and have been paying rent to the State. Survey Khatiyan was prepared in the name of Chinibas Bhumij, f/o Gangadhar Singh Bhumij and Sambhu Singh in the year 1964 and they were in joint possession. After death of Chinibas Singh, Gangadhar Bhumij inherited the land. Further, after death of Chinibas Singh, Gangadhar Bhumij inherited his share. There was mutual oral partition between the recorded tenants and they were in possession of their respective shares. No objection was raised by anyone during granting permission under Section 46 of the C.N.T. Act and under proceeding of mutation. On 10.04.2001 the defendant no. 1 made efforts to get the suit land to plough which was objected by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs had prayed for decree and permanent injunction.

(3.) Defendants appeared and filed written statement before the learned trial court showing ignorance about sale of the suit land by Chinibas Sardar in favour of the plaintiffs. They claimed sale deed to be false and fabricated. It was further contended that Gangadhar Sardar was not owner of R.S. Plot No. 528 under R.S. Khata No. 100. The said plot was recorded in the name of Kokil Bhumij, Gahan Bhumij, Mohan Bhumij, Madhab Bhumij, all sons of Haru Bhumij. The said entry of Khatiyan was prepared in the year 1908. In the survey settlement of 1964, land under Khata No. 100, RS Plot No. 528 was recorded in the name of Chinibas Bhumij, son of Kokil Bhumij showing one share. The survey settlement 1964 was baseless because Khata No. 100, R.S. Plot No. 528 is carved out from R.S. Plot No. 225, under R.S. Khata No. 72 and Kokil Bhumij had got 1/4th share in C.S. Plot No. 225. Chinibas Sardar was not related with Shambhu Bhumij and he was a servant which has got support from T.S. No. 304/67. That suit was filed by Sushila Bhumij, widow of late Shambhu Bhumij against defendant Chinibas Bhumij. That case was compromised and a joint compromise petition was filed on 19.06.1967. The compromise petition reveals that entry of name of Chinibas Bhumij in Khatiyan of 1964 settlement under Khata No. 100, Plot No. 528 was erroneous. The defendant denied about any knowledge of proceeding under Section 46 of C.N.T. Act. So, he did not file any objection in that proceeding. The defendant denied possession of plaintiffs over the suit land and submitted further that the defendant were all in possession of the suit land. It was further contended that he was not knowing about the proceeding of Mutation Case No. 90 of 2000 01. He did not know that the plaintiff has been paying rent to the Government of Bihar for the land in dispute. He further denied joint possession of Chinibas Bhumij and Shambhu Singh over the suit land. Chinibas Sardar was not owner of the suit land and Chinibas Sardar had already compromised this matter in T.S. No. 304/67 in the court of Munsif at Jamshedpur. No partition had taken place between Shambhu Singh and Chinibas Bhumij. He did not know about transfer of land by Gangadhar Singh in favour of the plaintiff. After death of Shambhu Singh, present defendant inherited the suit land. The defendant denied versions of the plaintiff through his written statement.