Narendra Nath Tiwari, J. - (1.) THIS second appeal is against the judgment and decree dated 6.8.1992 passed by 7th Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Title Appeal No. 20/87 dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 28.6.1986 passed by Additional Sub -ordinate Judge, Ranchi in Title Suit No. 155/1982. The appellant was the plaintiff in the said suit. She prayed for relief for declaration of her right, title, interest and possession over the suit land and also for declaration that the order dated 21.1.1981 passed in Case No. M 4/7 and order dated 5.5.1982 passed in Cr. Rev. No. 133/1981 are contrary to law, inoperative, illegal and void. The plaintiff also prayed for alternative relief for delivery of possession in favour of the plaintiff - proforma defendant, in the event of finding that the appellant was dispossessed from the suit land.
(2.) THE suit land, as described in the schedule appended to the plaint, is the land of Village - Ziarappa, P.S. - Khunti, Thana No. 227, District - Ranchi, appertaining to Khata Nos. 10 & 11, measuring total area of 9.33 Acres. The plaintiff's case, in brief, was that the suit land was recorded in the name of Karma Swansi, son of Late Mangra Swansi in the Revisional Survey Record of Rights - finally published in the year 1934. Karma Swansi entrusted and handed over possession of his land to his uncle Etwa Swansi about 40 years ago. Etwa Swansi remained in peaceful possession of the same. Thereafter, the suit land jointly inherited and held by the plaintiff and the defendant Nos. 2 & 3 being the descendants of Etwa Swansi. Further case of the plaintiff is that the suit land was deemed to be declared abandoned land in a proceeding before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Khunti in the year 1964, but due to timely objection preferred by the plaintiff and the proforma defendant, the proceeding was dropped and a finding was given that the suit land belonged to the plaintiff and the proforma defendant. The suit land was also mutated in the name of the plaintiff and the proforma defendant. The defendant No. 1 for the first time claimed right, title over the suit land in a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. registered as Case No. M 498/78. The said proceeding was decided in favour of the defendants. Again a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. was initiated, which was also decided in favour of the defendant No. 1 and his possession was declared. He filed Criminal Revision No. 133/1981, but the same stood dismissed by order dated 5.5.1982. However, despite the said declaration, the plaintiff and the proforma defendant continued in possession of the suit land. The claim of the defendant No. 1 is false and baseless and the orders passed in the aforesaid proceedings are contrary to the facts and law. The plaintiff is entitled for a decree declaring her right, title and possession.
(3.) THE defendant -respondent -respondent contested the suit by filing written statement. It was, inter alia, averred that the suit is not maintainable, as the same is barred under the provisions of the Limitation Act and under the provisions of Section 34 of the Specific. Relief Act and also by waiver, estoppal and acquiescence. The plaintiff has absolutely no right, title and she was never in possession of the suit land. The plaintiff has no cause of action for the suit. The plaintiff has been residing in Village - Ziarappa, but her village has been wrongly shown as Gutgora. The suit land was admittedly recorded in the name of Karma Swansi, who happened to be the grandfather of the defendant. Karma Swansi died leaving behind his son Bheru Swansi, who had been in exclusive possession of the suit land. After the death of Bheru Swansi, the defendant being the daughter of Bheru Swansi came in possession over the suit land. Karma Swansi never transferred the possession of the suit land to his uncle Etwa Swansi. The plaintiff - proforma defendants had been claiming their right, title without any valid transfer of the land by the defendant - grandfather of the descendants. The suit land is in continuous peaceful possession of the defendant. The claim of possession made by the plaintiff was decided in 145 Cr.P.C. in which the defendants' possession has been declared and the plaintiff was restrained from interfering with the possession. The said order is well considered and legal. There is no infirmity or illegality in the said order. The plaintiff is, thus, not entitled to any relief and the suit is liable to be dismissed.;