RADHASHYAM NAIK AND ORS. Vs. SRIPATI NAIK AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a judgment and decree dated 28th April, 1975 passed by Shri R.B.P. Sinha, Sub -ordinate Judge, Jamshedpur in T.S. No. 34 of 1969 whereby and whereunder the said learned court decreed the plaintiffs -respondents' suit. In view of the facts that the facts of the case have been stated in details by the learned court below in his judgment, it is not necessary to traverse the facts over again herein.

(2.) Suffice it to say that the plaintiffs filed the aforementioned suit claiming, inter alia, the following reliefs:

(3.) The plaintiff proceeded on the basis that his father Baikunth Naik was a Ghatwal appointed by the landlord in terms of Bengal Regulation No. 29 of 1814. As the said Baikunth Naik became old, the land given to him by the landlord was surrendered and the landlord resumed the possession and executed a fresh sanad in the year 1940 (Ext. 7) in favour of the original plaintiff. The plaintiff contends that by reason of the said sanad he came in possession and continued to be in possession thereof when the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1956 (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'Act') came into force on 1.1.56 and he being in possession of the land on the said date became a statutory tenant under the State of Bihar in terms of the provisions of Sec. 6 of the Act. The plaintiff further stated that upon vesting of his tenure in the State of Bihar under the Act he filed a return in terms of Sec. 3(B) of the Act with respect to his aforesaid tenure and also filed an application to the Collector in Form 'K' as provided in the Rules framed under the Act for fixation of fair rents in his name. It is further stated that defendants who had a greedy eye over the properties in suit started to disturb the possession of the plaintiff resulting in initiation of a proceeding under Sec. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which was ultimately decided against the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed the aforementioned suit after the said decision in the proceeding under Sec. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Defendants 1, 3 and 4 filed one set of written statement and another set of written statement was filed by the defendant No. 5. However, in both sets of the written statements the defendants' defence was common. The defendants pleaded in the written statements aforementioned that inspite of execution of Ext. 7 the father of the original plaintiff, namely, Baikunth Naik continued to be in possession of the properties in question alongwith his son i.e. Hardhan Naik and the other defendants and even all the sons of Baikunth Naik were in possession of the properties in question, in the year 1956 when the Bihar Land Reforms Act came into force. It was further stated in the written statement that the defendants filed an application for getting their names entered in the register maintained by the State of Bihar alongwith the plaintiff which was all owed by the B.D.O. Baharagora by an order dated 28th April, 1966. It is further stated that after the aforementioned order in Form M (Ext. G) was issued in the names of the plaintiff and the said defendants jointly, Rent receipts (A series) were also issued in their joint names.