NARENDRA NATH TIWARI, J. - (1.) THIS second appeal is against the judgment and decree dated 15th June, 2005 (decree signed on 28.06.2005) passed by the learned District Judge, Hazaribagh in Title Appeal No. 21 of 2003 dismissing the appeal and upholding the judgment and decree passed by learned Subordinate Judge -IV, Hazaribagh in Title Suit No. 66 of 1992.
(2.) THE Appellants were the Defendants in Title Suit No. 66 of 1992. The said suit was filed by the Plaintiffs Respondents praying therein a decree for declaration of title and confirmation of possession or alternatively for recovery of possession of the suit property and also for grant of injunction restraining the Defendants from making any construction over the suit property. The Plaintiffs ' case was that Bihari Mahto was settled raiyat of Village -Kekebar. The land of Khata No. 7 of the said village was recorded in the name of his father and uncle in the last survey. One Ibrahim Mian s/o Munna Mian of Village -Kekebar had taken raiyati settlement of Plot No. 99, measuring 90 decimals from the ex -landlord in the year 1932. Ibrahim Mian came in peaceful cultivating possession of the said land. He used to pay rent to the ex -landlord. Subsequently, Ibrahim Mian sold 90 decimals land of Plot No. 99 to Bihari Mahto, husband of Plaintiff No. 1 and father of Plaintiff Nos. 2 to 7, for valuable consideration, by virtue of registered sale deed dated 16.3.1983. Bihari Mahto came in possession of the purchased land. The land was mutated in the name of Bihari Mahto in Mutation Case No. 550/1984 -85. Bihari Mahto also purchased 41 decimals of land of Plot No. 568 to the notice and knowledge of the Defendants. It has been stated by the Plaintiffs that though the Defendants have no right, title and possession over the Plot No. 99 and Plot No. 568 purchased by Bihar Mahto, they are trying to grab the suit land by applying force. They have also manufactured some documents for that purpose. The Defendants started to forcibly erect boundary wall towards east and north side of Plot No. 99, which led to proceeding under Section 144/145 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The Plaintiffs having no alternative remedy, filed the instant suit.
(3.) THE Defendants contested the suit. In their written statement, they stated, inter alia, that the suit is barred under various provisions of law. The Defendants claimed their possession over the suit land. According to the Defendant -Chotu Mahto -father of Defendant No. 1, took settlement of land of Khata No. 1 of Village -Kekebar in 1927 from the co -sharer ex -landlord -Ledu Mahto, including the portion of the suit land. He also paid rent to the ex -landlord. After vesting of estate, he paid rent to the State. After their settlement, they have got raiyati right over Plot No. 99 and they have been cultivating the land for last 49 years. They have also constructed brick built compound wall. They are in peaceful possession of Plot No. 568 under Khata No.;