NARENDRA NATH TIWARI, J. - (1.) THIS second appeal is against the judgment and decree passed by the 7th Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No. IV, Godda in Title Appeal No. 24 of 2003/3 of 2004 whereby the Court below has allowed the appeal and decreed the plaintiffs suit.
(2.) THE plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 24 of 2001 before the Subordinate Judge, Godda praying relief for declaration that the land of Plot No. 412 of Mouza Gangta Khurd measuring an area of 5 kathas is exclusive property of the plaintiff and the defendants have illegally and forcible trespassed over the same. The suit land was fully described in Schedule 'A' to the plaint. The further prayer was for recovery of possession by evicting the defendants from the suit land and for permanent injunction restraining them from disturbing the plaintiffs possession. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit land was settled by the Sub Divisional Officer, Godda in Settlement Case No. 344/75 -76, by order dated 03.12.1975. Delivery of possession, thereafter, was effected through the process of the Court in Revenue Misc. Case No. 3 of 1976 -77 of the Court of Sub Divisional Officer, Godda and the same was confirmed by order dated 15.06.1975. After getting the settlement, the plaintiff constructed his house and has been residing and paying tax to the Notified Area Committee, Godda for his Holding No. 1334/6 as also paying rent to the State. It has been stated that the plaintiff fell seriously ill and was out for his treatment and was confined to bed. When he came back he found that his two rooms were demolished and the defendants have illegally and forcibly trespassed over the land and the house. It has been stated that the defendants has absolutely no manner of concern, right or title over the suit property and as the plaintiff is the poor retired person, the defendants have forcibly and illegally attempted to grab his property. Hence the suit.
(3.) THE defendants appeared and contested the suit contending, interalia, that the land was never settled by the Sub Divisional Officer, Godda and the alleged proceedings of the Settlement Case No. 3 of 1976 -77 was mere a paper transaction. The defendants were not the party to the settlement case and any order passed therein or delivery of possession to them through the Court were all behind their back and is not binding on the defendants and one Sunaina Devi. It was claimed by the defendants that Sunaina Devi widow of Basudeo Mandal of Village Bhartikitt had obtained a settlement from the ex -landlord of Raj Banaki Estate as far back as on 25.03.1951 and she has constructed a house and fenced the whole area. Sunaina Devi was residing in the said house. The defendants have been in occupation of the premises on behalf of said Sunaina Devi. It has been stated that the said Sunaina Devi was a necessary party as in her absence the suit cannot proceed and was bad for misjoinder of party. The defendants denied other statements of the plaint as also the claim of the plaintiff.;