Vishnudeo Narayan, J. - (1.) THIS appeal at the instance of the plaintiffs -appellant has been filed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 21.4.1984 and 3.5.1984 respectively passed in Title Appeal No. 14 of 1967 by Shri R.K. Tuly, 3rd Additional Sub -ordinate Judge, Palamau whereby and whereunder the appeal was allowed in part and the judgment and decree of the trial Court passed in Title Suit No. 14 of 1964 was modified and the right and title in respect of Plot No. 464 only was declared in favour of the plaintiffs and they are entitled to get the recovery of possession over the same and suit of the plaintiffs was decreed only in respect of Plot No. 464 appertaining to Khata No. 55. It is relevant to mention here that the trial Court had decreed the suit in part declaring right, title, interest and possession over the Plot Nos. 169 of Khata No. 1, 464 of Khata Nos. 55 and 478 of Khata No. 60 and they were entitled for recovery of possession in respect thereof.
(2.) THE plaintiffs -appellant had filed Title Suit No. 14 of 1964 for declaration that Plot No. 169 of Khata No. 1 having an area of 10 decimals, Plot No. 464 of Khata No. 55 having an area of 1.35 decimals. Plot No. 152 having an area of 16 decimals, Plot No. 180 having an area of 28 decimals and Plot No. 478 of Khata No. 60 having an area of 12 decimals are the raiyat lands of the plaintiffs in respect of which they have acquired valid right, title and possession over the same and the defendants are liable to be evicted there from and the plaintiffs be put in possession over the same and Rs. 366/ - was also claimed as mesne profit and the future amount of mesne profit shall be ascertained in a separate proceeding after disposal of the suit. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, is that there were several co -sharers landlord including Nawab Saheb of Patna whose estate was managed by Patna Ward Encumbered estate. Rai Saheb Dharamdeo Narayan Singh and his family and Sheodhari Singh in respect of village -Dihri Bishrampur Pargana Japla, Thana -Hussainabad, Thana No. 386 in the district of Palamau and Village -Dihri Bishrampur was partitioned amongst the co -sharer landlords and a separate Takhata for three annas share was allotted in the name of Rai Saheb Dharamdeo Narayan Singh and his family vide Partition Suit No. 252 of 1924 and said Rai Saheb Dharmadeo Narayan Singh came in possession of his share separately. Plot No. 169 appertaining to Khata No. 1 of Village Dihri Bishrampur was recorded as Bakast of Sheodhari Singh aforesaid but in the said partition the suit plot was allotted to the Takhata of Rai Saheb Dharamdeo Narayan Singh and his family members and there was a partition among the members of his family after his death and the said plot was sold to the plaintiffs by the ex -landlord by registered sale deeds dated 16.10.1960, 19.9.1960, 15.4.1961 and 7.3.1961 and since then the plaintiffs are in possession of the said plot. It is alleged that Plot No. 464 appertaining to Khata No. 55 stands recorded in the name of Mahabir Nunia in the cadastral survey records of right and it was resumed by the ex -landlord who settled the same with one Bindeshwari Singh of Village -Dihri Bishrampur and said Bindeshwari Singh executed a deed of registered Wazidaba dated 10.6.1928 in favour of Rai Saheb Dharamdeo Narayan Singh under whose Takhata this plot has fallen in the said partition suit and the plaintiff No. 1 got settlement of 11 decimals out of the said plot about 16 years ago and came in possession over the same as raiyat Afterwards the plaintiffs purchased the remaining area of Plot No. 464 by virtue of the registered sale deeds dated 16.10.1960, 19.9.1960, 15.1.1961 and 7.3.1961 executed by the ex -landlord aforesaid and since then they are in possession of the said plot. Plot Nos. 152, 180 and 468 appertaining to Khata No. 60 were recorded as Gairmajarwa Malik in the cadastral survey records of right and these plots were also allotted to Rai Saheb Dharamdeo Narayan Singh and the plaintiffs purchased the aforesaid plots through registered sale deed dated 16.10.1960, 19.9.1960, 15.4.1961 and 7.3.1961 from the ex -landlord and they are coming in possession over the same since then. It is alleged that Plot No. 152 was recorded, as nala in the survey records of right but Rai Saheb Dharamdeo Narayan Singh was in exclusive possession over it as he had filled up the ditch and after levelling it amalgamated it with Plot No. 151 which was his exclusive land allotted to his share. It is alleged that Plot Nos. 464, 479, 478 and 480 stand amalgamated and the plaintiffs have built a house in Plot No. 180 and Plot No. 152 is amalgamated with Plot No. 151 and similarly Plot No. 180, is an amalgamated with Plot No. 181. It is alleged that Plot No. 169 is amalgamated with Plot No. 170 and all the aforesaid plots belong to the plaintiffs and Plot No. 478 is close proximity with Plot No. 464. The plaintiffs were come in possession of all the said plots aforesaid but the defendants in the year 1961 intended to take forceful possession of the suit plots and with that intent they started a proceeding under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect thereof and the said proceeding was converted into a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the said proceeding terminated in favour of the defendants declaring their possession over the suit lands and thereafter the defendants dispossessed the plaintiffs from the suit plots. Hence the necessity for the suit.
(3.) THE case of the defendant Nos. 1 to 1(b), 2 and 3 as per their written statement, inter alia, is that the land of Khata No. 55 with the land of other Khatas and abandoned holdings were taken in settlement by the ancestor of the defendants and his several other aganates and Bindeshwari Singh took settlement from the Nawab of Patna by means of hukumnama and Bindeshwari Singh, who was the maternal uncle of defendant Nos. 1 and 2, was sent alone to Patna to take settlement and he executed a Kabuliyat and go the hukumnamain his name but the lands under settlement came and continue in possession of the respective settlees including the defendants as agreed upon. It is alleged that the suit Plot No. 464 thus came in possession of original defendant and after his death, defendant Nos. 1 to 1(b) who are his sons, are coming in exclusive possession over the said suit Plot No. 464. It is further alleged that Bindeshwari Singh has neither executed any Bazidaba nor he could do so as the settlees were really the defendants and many others but without whose consent it could not be done and said Bazidaba is a forged and fabricated document brought into existence by interested persons. Their case further is that Rai Saheb Dharamdeo Narayan Singh on purchase of the share in the estate of Dihri Bishrampur could not get possession as against the other co -sharers including Sheodhari Singh and he filed partition suit and obtained a decree but no delivery of possession could be affected and Rai Saheb Dharamdeo Narayan Singh did not come in possession over the lands which remained in possession of the defendants and others. It is alleged that later on, village -Dihri Bishrampur was alleged exclusively to Janardhan Prasad Singh, one of the co -sharers of Kachra estate and he settled by allowing the defendants and their ancestors and other raiyats to cultivate the disputed land on payment of Adbatai rent but no receipt was ever granted and thus the tenants including the defendants continued in cultivating possession of the respective lands and went on paying Adbatai rent as agreed and said Janardhan Prasad Singh died issueless and his agnate began to take possession of the property of his share by force as against his widow Most. Jarbasi Kuer resulting in criminal cases and the tenants of Dihri Bishrampur including the defendants' family sided with Most. Jarbasi Kuer to their great annoyance with the result that the co -sharers had to compromise the case and grant absolute right to Most. Jarbasi Kuer over the share of her husband but gave her other properties in lieu of Dihri Bishrampur. Further case of the defendants is that Muneshwar Prasad Singh, the younger brother of Rai Saheb Dharamdeo Narayan Singh began to manage the affairs of Dihri Bishrampur and out of grudge wanted to disturb the possession the raiyats including the defendants over the lands of their possession and when he could not succeed he set up plaintiff No. 1 and others to oust the Rajput raiyats and for this granted rent receipt to them and also initiated a proceeding under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure through plaintiff No. 1 against the Rajput raiyats and thereafter proceeding under Sections 144 and 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were also initiated in which the possession of the defendants and other Rajput raiyats was upheld throughout. It is also alleged that some suits were also filed but none of the suits, the defendants were made parties and the ex -landlord could not get possession over any land.;