RAMESHWAR PRASAD SINGH Vs. BHUBNESHWAR THAKUR ALIAS BHUNA THAKUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three appeals have been heard together and this judgment will govern all these three appeals. Title Suit No. 40 of, 1958 has given rise to Title. Appeal No. 96 of 1962 and Second Appeal No. 541 of 1976. This second appeal has been preferred by the defendants 2nd and 8th parties in a suit instituted by the plaintiff for declaration of title and confirmation of possession and, in the alternative, recovery of possession over the lands mentioned in Schedules 3 and 4 of the plaint. This suit relates to a considerable land in village Shahjadapur. Title Suit No. 89 of 1957 was instituted by one Bindeshwari Prasad Sahi, one of the defendants of Title Suit No. 40 of 1958, against the plaintiff and his son (Jadu) for declaration of title and recovery of possession of 1 bigha 16 kathas and 9 dhurs of land as detailed in the plaint, which gives rise to Second Appeal No. 542 of 1976. Bindeshwari Prasad Sahi, defendant 2nd party of Title Suit No. 40 of 1958, instituted another suit being Title Suit No. 206 of 1956, against the plaintiff of Title Suit No. 40 of 1958 (Jadu) for the same relief with respect to 2 bighas, 15 kathas and 18 dhurs, out of which Second Appeal No. 543 of 1976 arises.

(2.) Title Suit No. 40 of 1958 was dismissed by the trial court and Title Suit No 89 of 1957 and Title Suit No. 206 of 1956 were decreed. As against these three decrees, the plaintiff of Title Suit No. 40 of 1958 preferred Title Appeal Nos. 96, 97 and 98 of 1962. The lower appellate court reversed the judgment of the trial court in all these three appeals by decreeing the suit of plaintiff Jadu in Title Appeal No. 96 of 1962 and dismissed Title Suit No. 89 of 1957 and Title Suit No. 206 of 1956 instituted by Bindeshwari Prasad Sahi. The present three appeals have been filed by defendant 2nd and 8th parties of Title Suit No. 40 of 1958 and plaintiff of Title Suit No. 89 of 1957 and Title Suit No. 206 of 1956. The immediate cause of action for institution of all the three suits relates to an order passed under Sec. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(3.) Declaration sought for by the plaintiff Jadu Thakur in Title Suit No. 40 of 1958 and the defence set forward in Title Suit No. 89 of 1957 and Title Suit No. 206 of 1956 is that he being the nearest heir of Paltu Thakur he is entitled to the entire property left by Haso Kuer as reversioner. Defendant in title Suit No. 40 of 1958 and plaintiff in Title Suit No. 89 of 1957 and Title Suit No. 206 of 1956 claimed to be mortgagee from Sohagbati and/or Most. Haso Kuer and they resist the claim of Jadu Thakur on various grounds to which I will advert hereinafter. Before I consider the case of the parties, it will be essential to set out the genealogy admitted by both the parties.