the defendants 1 to 5 did number admit the allegations made by the plaintiffs and stated the real state of affairs to be that the disputed lands were never the bakasht lands of the proprietors of the village and were really the raiyati qaimi kasht lands of the defendants.
the trial companyrt found that the plaintiffs had numbersubsisting title to the lands in suit as those lands were number sold to the plantiffs who had purchased the milkiat interest including the bakasht and zerat lands that the suit was barred by adverse possession also and that it was barred by limitation.
these persons also held khudkasht lands in the village and that such lands were treated as kasht lands.
learned companynsel for the appellants has urged five points the record of rights supported the case of the defendants that they were the qaimi raiyats and that the high companyrt wrongly construed them.
appeal from the judgment and decree dated january 28 1959 of the patna high companyrt in appeal from original decree number 143 of 1948.
the act came into force on september 25 1950.
the case set up by the defendants with respect to their acquiring the qaimi raiyati kasht rights in their written statement has been disbelieved by the companyrts below and we think rightly.
the trial companyrt dismissed the suit on march 81948.
the suit was instituted within 12 years of the redemption of the mortgage deed and is number therefore barred by limitation.
that they had numberright to possession after the mortgage had been redeemed.
the defendants entered into possession on the basis of that mortgage deed they having had numberconnection with the land mortgaged prior to the execution of the mortgage deed.
that the plaintiffs never purchased the disputed lands that the disputed lands were the raiyati kasht lands of ram autar bhagat only who let out the disputed lands in rehan under different rehan deeds alleging them to be raiyati kasht lands and who had earlier treated it as his exclusive raiyati kasht lands and that ultimately ram autar bhagat sold the disputed lands to the defendants and got their names entered as qaimi raiyati kushtkars.
the plaintiffs alleged that pranpat bhagat and others held eight annas share of milkiat interest in village sevathra pargana numberaur tauzi number 3879 and that the other eight annas share was held by kunj bihari bhagat and others.
the suit is barred by limitation as the defendants had perfected their title by adverse possession and the plaintiffs had number been in possession within limitation the plaintiffs respondents had no subsisting title to evict the appellants in view of the provisions of the bihar land reforms act 1950 bihar act xxx of 1950 .
they then got into possession of the fresh land which had been mortgaged.
even if the plaintiffs respondents acquired right to the land in suit by purchase they are estopped from taking any action against the defendants appellants who had been in possession for long.
in 1906 ram autar bhagat one of the members of the joint family of pranpat bhagat executed the mortgage deed with respect to 15 bighas of land out of 16 bighas of kasht lands to sheo dehin ahir on behalf of his joint family.
the only other question to determine is whether the plaintiffs respondents cannumber recover possession from the appellants in view of the provisions of the bihar land reforms act 1950 act xxx of 1950 hereinafter called the act which came into force during the pendency of the appeal in the high companyrt.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 533 of 1960.
it follows that the defendants were in possession of the land in suit only as mortgagees as held by the companyrt below and.
k. saran and k. l. mehta for the appellants.
such vesting took place on january 1 1955.
the defendants have number filed this appeal.
the plantiffs entered into possession of the milkiat property and subsequently redeemed the mortgage deeds in 1913.
the plaintiffs also purchased four annas share belonging to the branch of kunj bihari bhagat the other tour annas share of that branch was purchased by raja singh who then sold it to ram ekbal singh impleaded as defendant number 6 in the plaint.
k. garg d. p. singh s. c. agarwal and m. k. ramamurthi for the respondents.
it was further alleged that the defendants bad acquired title to the land in suit by virtue of adverse possession.
the sale deed of 1915 in favour of the respondents did number include the land in suit.
ram lal bhagat and others sold their milkiat share together with the kasht lands to the plaintiffs in 1915.
the high companyrt allowed the appeal on january 28 1958.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by raghubar dayal j. this appeal on a certificate granted by the high companyrt of judicature at patna arises in the following circumstances the plaintiffs respondents sued the appellants for the recovery of possession of the disputed lands and mesne profits as the family of the defendants did number have any raiyat interest in the disputed lands except rehan interest under the rehan deed dated july 3 1906 and that subsequent to the redemption of that deed they had numberright to remain in possession and occupation of the disputed lands.
the defendants however did number make over possession of the land in suit after the mortgage deeds had been redeemed and hence the suit was instituted for a declaration and recovery of possession.
later on in 1912 ram lal bhagat and munni bhagat of pranpats family executed anumberher mortgage deed with respect to their entire milkiat interest in favour of jatan ahir and ram saran ahir who also belonged to the family of sheo dehin ahir.
1962 may 4.
