HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE v. NATH ORAL ORDER
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Second Appeal No.629 of 2010 ====================================================== 1. Ram Prakash Singh, 2. Santosh Singh @ Santosh Kumar Singh. 3. Birendra Singh. All three sons of Baban Singh, Resident of village- Parmeshwarpur, P.O. & P.S.-Sikaraul, Block-Navanagar, District-Buxar. Plaintiffs-Appellants----------------------------------------- Appellants. Versus 1. Mukesh Singh, Son of Shyambihari Singh. 2. Ashok Singh, Son of Bishwanath Singh. 3. Surendra Singh. 4. Kundan Singh. 5. Munilal Singh. All three sons of Hari Prasad Singh. 6. Pramod Kumar Singh, Son of Kundan Singh. All Resident of village- Parmeshwarpur, P.O. & P.S.-Sikaraul, Block-
Legal Reasoning
Navanagar, District-Buxar-Defendants-Respondents-... Respondents. ======================================================
Legal Reasoning
Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. B.J.OJha,Adv. For the Respondent-State : Mr. Ajay Kumar A.C. to AAG-8. ==================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. NATH ORAL ORDER 5 04-01-2013 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State of Bihar. 2. The plaintiff is the appellant in this appeal against the judgment and decree of the appellate court affirming the dismissal of his suit by the trial court. 2 Patna High Court SA No.629 of 2010 (5) dt.04-01-2013 2 / 6 3. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for declaration of his title over the disputed land with further declaration that the defendants settlees have not acquired right, title and interest over the suit land on the basis of settlement made in their favour by the respondent-State of Bihar in Settlement Case No.02/92-93. The relief for injunction against the defendants from going over the suit land was also sought. 4. It is not in dispute that the suit land originally belonged to the ex-landlord Maharaja of Dumraon. It is the case of the plaintiff that one Sukhdeo Singh took the settlement of some land through registered deed of patta from the ex-landlord. The said settlee Sukhdeo Singh sold 6 acres of land to Lila Rai uncle of Ramlal Singh. The plaintiff has based his claim of title over the suit land through purchase from Ramlal Singh. It is also not in dispute that the suit land has been recorded in the R.S.Khatian in the name of the State of Bihar as raiyat. During the consolidation proceeding also though the name of Ramlal, the vendor of the plaintiff, was ordered to be recorded in the column of possession but the name of the State of Bihar continued in the Raiyati column. The suit has been filed after the State of Bihar settled the suit land with the settlee defendants in the settlement case as above mentioned. 3 Patna High Court SA No.629 of 2010 (5) dt.04-01-2013 3 / 6 5. Both the courts below have come to the concurrent conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to establish his claim of acquisition of title over the suit land and was thus not entitled to the decree as prayed. Accordingly, the suit and thereafter the appeal has been dismissed. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant has firstly submitted that from the perusal of Ext.3 (order of the consolidation office) it is apparent that the suit land has been ordered to be recorded in possession of the vendor of the plaintiff- appellant. It has been next submitted that even the mutation of the name of the plaintiff has been done for the suit land by the State of Bihar, rent has been accepted and rent receipt has been granted to the plaintiffs. It has been contended by the learned counsel that both the courts below have failed to consider the impact of the entry in Ext.3 as well as the acceptance of rent by the State of Bihar from the plaintiff for the suit land. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State of Bihar has submitted that initially the State of Bihar which was necessary party to the suit was not impleaded as party in the suit but later on the same was done but even then no notice under Section 80 CPC was served before making the prayer for impleading the respondent- State of Bihar as party. It has thus been contended that the suit 4 Patna High Court SA No.629 of 2010 (5) dt.04-01-2013 4 / 6 itself be not maintainable. 7. From the impugned judgments of both the courts below, it is manifest that Sukhdeo Singh took in settlement some land from the ex-landlord. According to the plaintiff, his vendor’s predecessor Lila Rai purchased six acres of land from Sukhdeo Singh by registered sale deed(Ext.5) out of which the plaintiff has purchased 2.71 acres by registered sale deed (Ext.2) which is the suit land. The courts below have found that the plaintiff has failed to describe in the plaint the details of the land taken in settlement by Sukhdeo Singh as well as the details of the land which had been recorded in the name of State of Bihar out of the settled land. It has also been found by the trial court that the description of the land sold by Sukhdeo Singh to the vendor of plaintiffs by the sale deed (Ext.5) does not match the description of the land sold to the plaintiff (Ext.2). The fact also remains that from the very beginning i.e. in the survey Khtian the suit land has been recorded in the name of State of Bihar to the knowledge of the vendor of the plaintiff-appellant and even to the plaintiff-appellant. This fact is explicit from Ext.3 itself whereby the prayer for correction of the entry in the recent survey Khatian was made by the vendor of the plaintiff before the consolidation authorities but the prayer was allowed in part only by directing the name of the vendor of the 5 Patna High Court SA No.629 of 2010 (5) dt.04-01-2013 5 / 6 plaintiff to be recorded in the possessory column. Simultaneously it has also been found by the court that the State of Bihar was not a party in the proceeding in which the order (Ext.3) has been passed. It is also admitted position that in the present suit, the State of Bihar has not been made parties nor any notice under Section 80 CPC was ever given by the plaintiff to the State of Bihar before adding it as party later on. But even, thereafter, no relief against the records of right, prepared in the name of State of Bihar, has been sought for. The plaintiffs have also omitted to pray the consequential relief either for confirmation of possession or recovery of possession over the suit land. As such both the courts below have rightly come to the conclusion that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief as prayed. 8. The submission on behalf of the appellant that the impact of the order (Ext.3) and the mutation of the name of the plaintiff has not been properly considered. By the order (Ext.3), the name of the vendor of the plaintiffs has been entered in the column of possession in the records of rights for the suit land but the said entry by itself is not sufficient to create title in his favour. Similarly the mutation order does not confer title as the same is only an order passed by revenue authorities. Moreover, both the courts have taken into consideration the order (Ext.3) as well as 6 Patna High Court SA No.629 of 2010 (5) dt.04-01-2013 6 / 6 the mutation order and rent receipts before recording their conclusions. It is not the case of the appellant that the findings recorded by both the courts below are perverse and the entire submissions centre around for reappreciation of evidence. 9. In this view of the matter, I do not find any substantial question of law arising for consideration in this appeal. This second appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. Nitesh/- (V. Nath, J)