RANCHI, India, Sept. 28 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Aug. 28:

1. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The instant second appeal is preferred against the judgment of affirmance, whereby and whereunder, the suit filed by the plaintiff has been dismissed by learned Trial Court and the First Appellate Court has also dismissed the appeal.

3. The appellant/plaintiff instituted Title Suit No.14 of 1990 for declaration of his right, title, interest and confirmation of possession over the suit Schedule A property and also for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land. It is pleaded by the plaintiff that lands appertaining to C.S. Plot Nos.422 and 428 of village Bitapur, appertaining to Khata No.271 belongs to ex-estate of Kharsawan, Babu Kalicharan Prasad Singh Deo who made a permanent settlement of the said land in favour of Siba Mundari and Bisheswar Mundari, father and uncle of the plaintiff respectively through Patta dated 25.02.1937.

It is alleged that C.S. Plot No.422 was originally a parti and uncultivable land, which was made cultivable after incurring huge expenses and personal labour by the father and uncle of the plaintiff. Till their live, father and uncle of the plaintiff had cultivated the said land and after vesting of intermediary interest under the provisions Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, the rent was paid to the ex-landlord.

It is further alleged that during the progress of revisional survey, Bisheswar Mundaru died issueless and his interest over the suit land devolved upon the surviving brother, Siba Mundari, the father of plaintiff. The father of plaintiff has also died immediately after revisional survey and the suit property is held and possessed by the plaintiff. It is further alleged that only 0.30 acres land has been recorded in the name of father and uncle of the plaintiff under Khata No.240 and the rest portions of the suit property has been wrongly and erroneously recorded in the name of State of Bihar and some portion of the land has been settled with defendant, Durlav Mundari by defendant No.1. It is further alleged that local revenue staff started threatening the plaintiff to dispossess from the suit land, hence, the necessity of suit.

4. The defendant No.1, State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) had appeared but did not file any written statement. Defendant No.2 has denied the claim of plaintiff in toto in respect of the suit schedule land and pleaded that the suit is barred by limitation, non-joinder of necessary parties, provisions of C.N.T. Act and Specific Relief Act.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=JWh84WYVV%2BM86K4sXzCHnyDHdvV1kfcbMeSGVDoNr0ROlv14I7WOWhtSBrfqMYVL&caseno=SA/57/2002&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010181422002&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.