- (1.) Heard Mr. Rohitashya Roy, assisted by Mr. Vibhor Mayank, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Gautam Kumar, learned S.C. (Mines)-I appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.
(2.) The appellant has filed this Second Appeal against the judgment dated 22.05.2017 and decree dated 27.05.2017 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-XIII, Jamshedpur in Title Appeal No. 48 of 2015, whereby, the appeal has been dismissed and the judgment dated 27.08.2015 and decree dated 07.09.2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division-II, Jamshedpur in Title Suit No. 58 of 1998 has been affirmed.
(3.) The appellant/plaintiff has instituted suit for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and permanent injunction. It was the case of the appellant/plaintiff that the land being R.S. Plot No. 1091, within R.S. Khata No. 464 corresponding to present survey plot no. 1481 Khata no. 446 and portion of Plot no. 1664, Khata No. 445 of Mouza Kitadih, P.S. Parsudih, Thana no. 1167, District- East Singhbhum containing of one pucca room and several temples i.e. Durga Mandir, Pahari Maa Mandir, Hanuman Mandir, Shiv Mandir, Ganesh Mandir, one Dharmasala, water taps with tankers and a flower garden was recorded in the name of Anabad Malik i.e. ex-landlord, the tenure holder of the estate. The original plaintiff approached the said ex-landlord, who settled a piece and parcel of land measuring more or less 3 bighas out of the total land of said R.S. Plot No. 1091 by way of Dol Settlement in the year 1938 and thereafter, she came in actual possession over the said land on payment of regular rent and other charges and she was used to obtain regular receipt of the same in her name from the ex-landlord. Thereafter, she constructed several house structure over the suit land including various temples and installed the deities of various God and Goddess, such as Goddess Kali, Pahari Maa, Mahadeo Mandir Hanuman Mandir etc. The plaintiff was performing all acts of her possession over the same and inducted tenants thereon peacefully well within the knowledge of all including the defendants. It was further case of the appellant/plaintiff that the suit land wrongly recorded in the name of Anabad Sarbasadharan and State of Bihar in the present survey settlement operation of 1964 and taking advantage of said wrong entry the defendants, who claimed themselves as the social worker of the general public of the locality with the association of various anti-social element of the locality are trying to occupy the premises forcibly with an intention to grab the suit property after evicting the plaintiff therefrom as well as they are also creating obstruction in the peaceful worship of deities over the suit property. The plaintiff being absolute owner of the suit property objected the said act of the defendants and thus cloud has been casted over the peaceful right, title,interest and possession of the appellant/plaintiff over the suit property. It was further averred that on 10.05.98, the defendants with the association of the Gunda element wanted to erect some structure over the suit property in order to occupy the same illegally and to grab the property by using their forces without taking recourse of law, but due to timely intervention of the appellant/plaintiff they could not succeed in their attempt and ultimately they left the place after giving threatening that they would come again with more men and power to occupy the suit property on the basis of entry made in the record of rights finally published in the year 1964 in respect to the suit land. It was also pleaded that the appellant/plaintiff for the first time on 10.05.98 came to learn regarding the said wrong entry made in record of rights. It was also averred in the suit that the appellant/plaintiff sent notice under Section 80 C.P.C dated 12.05.98 under U.P.C. to the defendant requesting them not to interfere with the right, title, interest and possession of the appellant/plaintiff over the suit property. It was also averred that the record of right finally published in the year 1964 in respect to the suit land is wrong, illegal and erroneous and the same has not affected the right, title, interest and possession of the appellant/plaintiff over the suit land. The appellant/plaintiff having been acquired absolute right over the suit property since the time of its settlement by previous landlord and as such, the appellant/plaintiff in actual physical possession by way of adverse possession thereof without any interference from any corner whatsoever.;