NARENDRA NATH TIWARI, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is against the judgment and decree dated 11.6.2002 passed in Title Appeal No.
(2.) /01 passed by the 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Latehar setting aside the judgment and decree dated 23.11.2000 passed in Title Suit No. 4/97. 2 The plaintiff is the appellant. He filed a suit praying decree for declaration of title and recovery of possession over the suit property. The suit property measured only 1 decimal of Plot No. 715 under Khata No. 71 of village -Alaudia, Tola Haria P.S. Chandwa, District Latehar. The said Plot Nos. 715 has a total area of 86 decimals. It was recorded as garmazruwa malik of the ex -landlord. According to the plaintiff, out of the total area the ex -landlord has settled 29 decimals of land in the said plot in favour of the plaintiffs father Deodhari Bharti and others in the year 1938. According to the plaintiff, they had been coming in possession of the said land. The plaintiff claimed that although the deed was with respect to only 29 decimals of the suit plot, yet his father possessed an area of 31 decimals of land and thus he has been corning in possession of 31 decimals of land. The defendant -State forcibly constructed a Yatri Shed covering nearly an area of 1 decimals of land of the said plot which gave rise to the cause of action for the suit. It was stated that out of that area 10 decimals of land was acquired by the PWD and as such he remained in possession of the rest of the area measuring 19 decimals of land. The State -defendants appeared and filed written statement contesting the said suit. It was stated that an area of 29 decimals only out of 86 decimals of said Plot No. 715 was settled with the plaintiffs father. Out of that, an area of 10 decimals of land was acquired by the State of Bihar earlier. In this way only 19 decimals of Plot No. 715 remained with the plaintiff and as such the plaintiff 'sclaim beyond that is wholly illegal and without any basis. According to the defendants, the Yatri Shed has been constructed over a public land and not on the land of the plaintiff and as such the said suit was without any basis and is liable to be dismissed.
(3.) BOTH the parties led, oral as well as documentary evidences in support of their respective cases. On the basis of the pleadings and some oral evidences, the trial Court decreed the plaintiff 's suit holding that the oral evidences of the PWs are believable and the evidences of the defendants are not believable. However, no reason was assigned for believing the PWs and disbelieving the DWs.;