Narendra Nath Tiwari, J. - (1.) THIS second appeal Is against the judgment and decree of learned District Judge, Lohardaga, who has dismissed the Appellant's appeal and concurred with the findings of the learned Trial Court.
(2.) THE Appellant was the Defendant No. 5 In the suit. The Plaintiffs/Respondents had filed the suit In the court of learned Munsif, Lohardaga, seeking declaration of their right, title and Interest over the suit land and for recovery of possession as well as permanent Injunction, restraining the Defendant No. 5 from disturbing possession of the Plaintiffs. They had also prayed for declaration that the order of settlement of the suit land by Issuing Wasg it Parcha dated 28th September, 1984 In favour of Defendant No. 5 is Illegal, void and without jurisdiction and the same is not binding on the Plaintiff's.
(3.) THE case of the Plaintiffs, in brief, Is that the lands of Municipal Survey Plot No. 812 under Khata No. 1 and Plot No. 247 under Khata No. 223 of village Kuru, P.S. Kuru, District Lohardaga were held and possessed by ex. Landlord -Ranchi Zamindari Properties Ltd. The said lands were managed, supervised and controlled by one Gauri Dutt Mandelia, who happened to be the Manager of Ranchi Zamindari Properties Ltd. With the consent of the then landlord, the said Manager had created a trust for the purpose of management of Shiv Temple, standing over Plot No. 247. The deed was executed and registered on 30th March, 1950. After creation of trust, the trustees used to manage the affairs of the said Shiv Temple, standing over an area 0.13 acres. The trust throughout remained In possession of the land. In course of time, trustees died one after the other, The last surviving trustee, namely, Shankar Sahu had made the Plaintiff Nos. 3 to 9 as tenure trustees by registered deed dated 4th June, 2001. The father of Defendant No. 5, namely, Jagdeo Sahu was permitted to stay over two decimals of land towards southern side of Plot No. 247 at a nominal rent of Rs. 15/ - per month. Jagdeo Sahu died leaving behind his son -Defendant No. 5, who Is now In occupation of the land, given to his father on rent. When the land under occupation of Defendant No. 5 was required for the purpose of extension of temple, the Defendant No. 5 was asked to vacate and hand over the land. The Defendant No. 5 Instead of vacating the suit land claimed his right and possession by virtue of Wasgit Parcha dated 28th September, 1984 Issued by the Circle Officer. The Circle Officer had no authority to settle the land with the Defendant No. 5, as the land never belonged to the State of Bihar. No notice was ever served on the Plaintiff regarding the said settlement. The alleged Parcha was obtained by the father of the Defendant No. 5 by suppressing the real facts and by practicing fraud on the Court.;