NARENDRA NATH TIWARI, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is against the Judgment and decree of reversal passed by Second Additional District Judge, Gumla whereby, the judgment and decree of the trial Court has been set aside allowing the plaintiffs appeal.
(2.) THE plaintiffs case was that the land measuring 4.72 acres bearing Plot Nos. 559, 995 and 142 appertaining to khata No. 51, Mauza Goja Bartola, Police Station Palkot, District Ranchi was recorded in the name of Sanu Kharia in the Revisional Survey Record of rights. Subsequently, Sanu Kharia died leaving behind his son Ghasi Kharia, who succeeded to his father and came in possession of the said land (hereinafter to be referred as the suit land). In the year 1938, Ghasi Kharia surrendered the said lands before the landlord Ban Bihari Lal by virtue of registered deed of surrender dated 2.4.1938 in favour of the ex -landlord. Thereafter the landlord came in possession and in the year 1944 settled the land in favour of the plaintiffs by a Sada Hukumnama followed by rent receipts on payment of salami of Rs. 80.00 . The plaintiffs, since thereafter, remained in cultivating possession, paid rent and obtained rent receipts from the landlords and after vesting of the estate from the State of Bihar. The further case is that the defendant filed a case for restoration under Section 71 -A of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act which was registered as S.A.R. Case No. 1126 of 1976 -77. They had also filed mutation case, wherein inspite of protest of the plaintiffs, the land was mutated in the names of the defendants, illegally. In view of the said facts, the plaintiffs sought declaration of their right, title and confirmation of possession and also for a declaration that the order of mutation and order the Revenue Court are wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. The defendants case was that the suit was not maintainable as the plaintiffs were the strangers and they were never in possession of the lands. It was stated that the land was never surrendered and the landlord never came in possession, neither he had any right to settle the same in favour of the plaintiffs. According to the defendant, the rent receipts, if any, are all forged and fabricated and the mutation has been rightly ordered in favour of the defendant on the basis of which they have been paying rent to the State of Bihar.
(3.) THE learned trial Court came to the finding that Ghasi Kharia had not surrendered the land in favour of the landlord and hence there was no question of settlement of the suit land in favour of the plaintiffs. The trial Court held that the story of initiation of restoration case was also not true. The trial Court decided the vital issues against the plaintiffs and dismissed the suit.;