- (1.) THE substantial question of law to be answered in this second appeal is as follows :- Whether the Court of appeal erred in law in holding that the plaintiff had not made out the case of title by adverse possession in the plaint and as such was not entitled to any relief in that case. "
(2.) THE aforesaid question arose out of the facts that the plaintiffrespondent-appellant had filed a Title Suit No. 16 of 1975 for declaration of his title and confirmation of possession over 14 decimals of land out of 53,60 Acres of land within portion of Plot No. 4, Khata no. 3 of Mouza Kumardhubi, Pergana Pandara, police station chirkunda, in the district of Dhanbad, bounded in North Portion of Plot no. 4, South Village road and thereafter houses east Durga Mandir and local club and West portion of Plot No. 4 on the basis of settlement made in his favour by M/s. Burrakar Coal Co. Limited in the year 1952 at a rental (annual) of Rs. 1/besides cess; Thereafter, the plaintiff paid rent thereof and received rent receipts (Ext. 2) and raised a small construction and ran a petty business. After the vesting of the jamindari under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, the then Block Development Officer of Nirsha asked the plaintiff for production of necessary papers with regard to encroachment "by construction of house over the aforesaid area and the plaintiff showed his papers and requested him for acceptance of rent and for issuance of rent receipts, but that matter was still pending. The positive case of the plaintiff was that not only by settlement but also by possession openly, peacefully and to the knowledge of all including the defendants the plaintiff has acquired a perfect and indefeasible title in respect of schedule A land. Thereafter, it appears that the construction made by the plaintiff over the disputed land was demolished by the defendants and for that a case under Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code was filed in the year 1972, in which the defendants were acquitted and according to the plaintiff that acquittal was net justified and was also not on proper appreciation of evidence.
(3.) THE defendants-appellants-respondents' case in short, was that the total area of the land was 53. 60 Acres. Out of that M/s. Burrakar Coal co. Ltd. had made a sub-lease in favour of defendant No. 1 in the year 1917 in respect of 33. 72 Acres of Acres of land and rest area of the land of the aforesaid Khata No. 4 and Plot No. 3 measuring 19. 88 acres was in peaceful and exclusive possession of Kumardhubi Fireclay and Silica Wcrks Ltd. Thus, the entire area of the said Plot No. 4 is being possessed partly by this defendant and partly by M/s. Kumardhubi Fireclay and Silica Works Ltd. All other allegations made by the plaintiff in the plaint were denied and with regard to claim of the plaintiff that he had acquired right, title and interest over the land by adverse possession was challenged by the defendants as they said that the plaintiff was not entitled to raise the question of improper appreciation of evidence by the criminal Court when the defendants were acquitted for the charges under Section 427 of the Indian Penal code and consequently the averments in this regard that the plaintiff had acquired right, title and possession over the disputed land by adverse possession was denied and it was strongly pleaded that the plaintiff never possessed any part of the land or the defendants had demolished the construction raised by the plaintiff thereon. The prayer was to dismiss the suit.;