- (1.) Since these two appeals arose out of common judgment and decrees passed by the courts below, they have been heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.) The appellants have challenged the judgment and decree dated 8-1-2004 passed by the First Additional District Judge, Koderma in Titte Appeal Nos. 24 and 26 of 2000 whereby he has dismissed the appeals filed by the appellants and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 30-3-2000 passed by the Munsif, Koderma in Title Suit No. 9/96 whereby the so called counter claim filed by the interveners-respondents has been allowed and decreed. These two appeals were admitted on 6-5-2004 for hearing on the following substantial questions of law : (I) Whether the trial court acted legally and with jurisdiction in purporting to decide the claim of defendants 3 to 17 as against defendants 1 and 2 and/or against additional defendants 18 to 20 in the suit filed by the plaintiff ? (ii) Having found that the suit was liable to be dismissed, whether the courts below had the jurisdiction to proceed to decide any inter se dispute between the defendants considering the nature of the suit and the reliefs claimed therein by the plaintiff ? (iii) Whether the courts below have not misunderstood the scope of a counter claim in terms of Order VIII Rule 6A of the Code of Civil Procedure and whether a counter-claim at the instance of one defendant against a co-defendant is maintainable in law in a suit of this nature ? (iv) Whether on the pleadings and the evidence the courts below were justified in passing the decree that is challenged in this Second Appeal ?"
(3.) The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass : The plaintiff-respondent no. 1, namely Bishwanath Mahto filed Title Suit No. 9/96 in the court of Munsif, Koderma for declaration of his title and confirmation of possession over the land comprised within Khata no. 2 of village Langrapar, Dom- chanch, Thana No. 62, P. S. Koderma, District-hazaribagh, (now Koderma). The suit was originally filed against the State of Bihar through the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma and the Divisional Forest Officer, Koderma. Plaintiffs case is that he acquired the land by virtue of a Hukumnama dated 1-4-1945 granted by the then Zamindar, namely, F. F. Christian, of village Domchanch, P. S. Koderma and came in continuous possession of the same. After vesting of the zamindari he was recognized as a tenant of the State of Bihar and was granted rent receipts. It is alleged that in the year, 1964-65 the forest department was making demarcation of the forest land and when the plaintiff was found in possession, the forest department leased out the land in favour of the plaintiff but in spite of it the defendants threatened to dispossess him from the land by bringing false forest cases.;