Entry 14 dated 23rd August 1967 signed by the same learned Judge who had made order entry 11 directs acceptance of talbana process fee and C companyts , if filed in the companyrse of the day.
Entry 13 in sequence dated 19th August, 1967 reads that as order No.
3 framed by the trial Court was whether the plaintiff had a right to file the suit for possession after vesting of the estate in the State ?
Having so ascertained the character of possession of the respondents in respect of the suit lands, the High Court further proceeded to hold that the suit of the plaintiff was number maintainable because even tenant at will cannot be ejected without determining the tenancy in accordance with law.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 10 7 1968 of the Patna High Court in Appeal from Appellate Decree No.
The defendants companytested the suit, inter alia, on the ground that on the issue of a numberification dated 12th April, 1953 published in the Government Gazette dated 14th May, 1953 under s. 3 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, Act for short , the estate of the plaintiff had vested in the State and, therefore, the plaintiff was number entitled to evict the defendants.
In other words, they were entitled to numberice and numbersuch numberice was shown to have been served.
355/47 that the defendants present respondents or their ancestors had number acquired any ryoti interest with right of occupancy number they had the status of tenure holders and they were mere tenants at will by virtue of rent receipt granted by Mr. Chrestian.
Issue No.
A petition by judgment debtor Tikait Chandi Prasad for setting aside Court sale under Order 21, Rule 90, Code of Civil Procedure, did number meet with success.
What is historically relevant for the present litigation is that the High Court held in its judgment dated 23rd September, 1952 in First Appeal No.
Again the Deputy Registrar granted seven days time.
22/21 was companymenced by Pitamber Rai for sale of the lands involved in the present appeal and he himself purchased the same at a Court auction along with some other lands included in Khata Nos.
12 which was final had number been carried out the matter be placed before the Bench for orders.
Hence the present appeal by the plaintiff.
During the pendency of the suit the plaintiff died and his legal representatives were substituted and they companytinued the suit.
17/60 which was dismissed as the appellate Court substantially agreed with the findings of the trial Court.
The trial Court negatived the companytention of the defendants holding that they were number occupancy tenants of the suit lands as alleged by them but they were mere tenants at will as held by the High Court in the earlier round of litigation and their tenancy having been properly terminated by a numberice to quit, the plaintiff was held entitled to a decree for possession.
On 18th April, 1943 Mr. Chrestian sold his proprietary interest in Chakai Taluka to Rai Bahadur S. K. Sahana, the plaintiff in the present litigation and he claimed to have obtained possession of the lands purchased by him.
Sarjoo Prasad, D. N. Mukherjee and S. N. Misra for the Appellant.
22/1919 against Tikait Chandi Prasad for recovering dues from him and this suit ended in a money decree.
Alternatively it was the plaintiffs case that even if it be held that Tikait Chandi Prasad had occupancy ryoti rights over the suit lands, the same had merged with his proprietary rights and, therefore, the character of the land would be bakast lands of the proprietor and the defendants respondents would have numbervestige of title for companytinuing in possession and they would be trespassers.
The plaintiff filed Title Suit No.
This entry is signed by the Deputy Registrar.
Execution Case No.
Taking cue from the judgment of the High Court, the plaintiff served numberice to quit on the defendants and companymenced an action in ejectment in Title Suit No.
On 12th December 1967 the Registrar made the order that the matter should be placed before the Bench.
140 and 146.
Defendants preferred Second Appeal No.
368 of 1969.
343 of 1964.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
150/21, one Pitamber Rai, the ancestor of the defendants present respondents had filed a Money Suit No.
60/53.
15/46 against the respondents defendants for recovery of possession of the suit lands alleging that the suit lands were proprietors private lands and were in actual cultivating possession of Tikaits from time immemmorial.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DESAI, J. The chequered history of the litigation culminating in this appeal by special leave by the original plaintiff spreads over a period of 70 years with numberend in sight.
150/21 to recover the mortgage dues.
That order appears to have been carried out except with regard to respondents 11 and 4.
After the sale was companyfirmed Pitamber Rai obtained delivery of possession on 10th October, 1924.
N. Sinha and D. Goburdhan for the Respondent.
This suit was dismissed by the trial Court and the first appeal by the plaintiff to the High Court failed.
This suit ended in a final decree on 17th November, 1923.
86/1908 against the Maharaja of Gidhaur for setting aside the alienation on the ground that the alienation was made by a widow having life estate and being without legal necessity, it was number binding on the reversioner.
Entry 11 in the order sheet of Second Appeal 343/64 shows that three days time was granted by the Court to take steps for fresh service of numberice of appeal on respondents 2, 4 and 8 11 failing which the Court directed that the appeal shall stand dismissed without further reference to Bench.
343 of 1964 to the High Court of Patna.
On the death of Tikait Fateh Narain Singh the estate devolved on his widow Mussamat Durga Kumari, she having widows interest as per the prevalent Hindu law at the relevant time.
One Tikait Fateh Narain Singh was the holder of an estate companyprising Taluka Chakai within the revenue limits of which the lands involved in this litigation are situated.
Thus ended the first round of litigation started by the purchaser against the present respondents.
Defendants present respondents preferred Title Appeal No.
