VISHNUDEO NARAYAN, J. - (1.) THIS appeal at the instance of the defendant appellant has been preferred against the impugned judgment and decree dated 9.6.1989 and 19.6.1989 passed in Title Appeal No. 1 of 1989 by Shit B.K. Dubey, District Judge, Gumla whereby and whereunder the judgment and decree dated 12.12.1988 and 21.12.1988 respectively passed in Title Suit No. 20 of 1986 by Munsif, Gumla were set aside and appeal was allowed declaring the title in respect of four plots also in favour of the plaintiffs -respondent.
(2.) THE plaintiff -respondent Paras Sahu (since dead) had filed Title Suit No, 20 of 1986 for declaration, of his title in respect of plot Nos. 1704, 2104, 2140, 2201, 2202 and 2745 appertaining to Revisional Survey khata No. 38 fully detailed in Schedule A of the plaint. The Trial Court had decreed the suit in part declaring the title of the said plaintiff -respondent in respect of plot No. 1704 and 2202 only. The plaintiff -respondent filed Title Appeal No. 1 of 1989 whereby his title over plot Nos. 2104, 2140, 2201 and 2745 was declared by the impugned judgment under this appeal and as such title of the plaintiff -respondent on the entire suit land stands declared in his favour. The case of the plaintiff -respondent 1st party (hereinafter referred to as the respondent), in brief, is that khata No. 38 of village Kasira PS Gumla, district Ranchi (now district Gumla) stands recorded in the name of Gujru Sahu and Bigna Sahu and there had been a partition between the said recorded raiyats after the revisional survey and the suit land was allotted in the share of Gujru Sahu exclusively and he was in possession over the same till he was alive. Said Gujru Sahu died leaving behind his widow Most. Phudan Sahun and one married daughter appellant Lilawati Sahun and they have sold the suit land vide registered sale deed dated 18.3,1959 for valuable consideration for legal necessities and family benefits to respondent Paras Sahu and put him in cultivating possession over the same and since then the respondent is in physical cultivating possession over the same and at the time of the execution of the said sale deed it did contain the correct name, area and boundary with their respective plot numbers but some interpolations have been done by some interested persons behind the back of the respondent in the number of the plots and the sale deed initially contained plot Nos. 1704, 2104, 2140, 2201, 2745 and 2202 but by interpolation plot No. 2104 has been made 2114, plot No. 2140 has been made 3140 plot No. 2201 has been made 2211 and plot No. 2745 has been made plot No. 3745 and the respondent being an illiterate ignorant villager could not know the said fraud at the time of the registration. After the execution and registration of the said sale deed Most. Phudan Sahun died and appellant Lilawati Sahun was living in her matrimonial home in village Ambowa. The respondent came to know about the said interpolation when he filed an application for mutation in the year 1962 before Circle Officer, Gumla but he was mutated in respect thereof on the basis of the possession found in course of local inspection made by the Revenue Authorities over the land in question according to the correct plot, area, boundary and name of the land and also in view of the fact that there was no other plot under khata No. 38 of the appellants with the said boundary, area and name of the land bearing plot Nos. 2114, 3140, 2211 and 3745 and the appellant had knowledge of the said mutation proceeding and there was no objection by her in respect thereof and the plaintiff has perfected his right, title and interest over the entire suit land by adverse possession and ouster by continuing in exclusive physical cultivating possession within the knowledge of the appellant and of all the persons with hostile title since the date of the execution of the sale deed and the title, if any, of the appellant stands extinguished. Thereafter, the appellant at the instigation of some interested persons filed one objection case at Khanapuri stage in Tanaza Case No. 1 of 1977 before the survey authority and in the said objection she has admitted the possession of the respondent over the suit land and her Tanaza was rejected and, thereafter, she filed a Mutation Case for mutation of her name in respect of plot Nos. 2104, 2140, 2201 and 2745 which was also rejected vide order dated 24.9.1980 passed in Mutation Case No. 53 of 1977 -78 but the appeal preferred by her was allowed on 10.1.1.985 and as against that the respondent also filed an Appeal No. 45 of 1985 -86 before the Additional Collector, Ranchi which was dismissed and, thereafter, the appellant filed a proceeding under Sec.144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which was decided in favour of the respondent. The appellant again filed a proceeding under Section 83 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act in respect thereof which was also dismissed. The respondent had sold plot No. 2201, 2202 and 2104 to Shankar Sahu and Hari Sahu and they are in possession over the same. Since a clog has been cast in view of the order aforesaid of the Additional Collector on his right and title and hence the necessity of this suit.
(3.) THE case of the defendant appellant, inter alia, is that she along with her mother Phudan Sahun was in need of money to meet the necessary expenditure and they contacted the respondent to purchase their land bearing plot No. 1704 having area of 89 decimals and plot No. 2202 having area of 78 decimals for Rs. 700.00 and they have only transferred the aforesaid two plots and no other plots have ever been sold by them to the respondent and taking undue advantage of the illiteracy he got other plots mentioned in the sale deed by the scribe Anand Swaroop Sahu who happens to be his relative and they have only produced a plain paper to the scribe containing plot Nos. 1704 and 2202 only and they have no knowledge about the other plots mentioned in the sale deed. It is alleged that plot Nos. 1704 and 2202 have only been sold to the respondent and he was put in possession over the same and the appellant is continuing in possession over the other four plots since the death of her father and her mother had died in the year 1974 -75 and after her death she applied for the mutation in her favour in respect of the four plots aforesaid which was allowed and the revision filed against that appeal by the respondent was dismissed. It is alleged that she came to know for the first time that the respondent has manipulated to get other lands mentioned in the sale deed for which she or her mother have never received any consideration amount and the aforesaid four plots never came in possession of the respondents and the question of perfection of right and title in respect of the four plots aforesaid by the respondent by adverse possession does not arise at all.;