Suit in respect of the remaining land was decreed.
The plaintiffs in whose favour deed for perpetual lease of the land purchased by Maina Kuer had been executed filed the present suit in January 1950 against the defendants, on the allegation that defendants 1 to 18 had taken wrongful possession of the land.
Three days later on September 30, 1940 Sheo Prasad Singh executed another deed for perpetual lease in respect of the remaining land measuring 8 bighas in favour of plaintiff No.
Prayer was also made, as mentioned above, for recovery of Rs.
1432 of 1968, From the judgment and decree dated the 26 10 1959 of the Patna High Court in appeal from original decree No.
It was also mentioned by the plaintiffs that proceedings under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of the land in dispute had been initiated but as those proceedings were dropped the plaintiffs had to seek redress by means of the present suit.
The suit was resisted by the defendants who denied the title of the plaintiffs or Maina Kuer to the land in dispute.
On May 16, 1941 Mahadeo Rai and others, in whose favour lease deed of the land had been executed for seven years, relinquished their rights under the lease in favour of the plaintiffs.
The trial companyrt dismissed the suit in respect of land measuring 28.36 acres out of plot No.
It was also stated that the said land had number been partitioned.
4,100 as mesne pretty.
On September 27, 1940 Sheo Prasad Singh executed on behalf of Maina Kuer a deed for perpetual lease of land measuring 134 bighas, 17 kathas out of the land purchased by her in favour of plaintiffs 1 to 9, 14, 16 to 18 and father of plaintiffs 10 to 13.
One Brahmdeo Singh had a share of S annas 4 pies in patti Bhrighunath Singh in the above Mahals.
The plaintiffs have companye up in appeal to this Court against the judgment and decree of the High Court on certificate granted under article 133 1 a of the Constitution.
The plaintiffs suit was held to be barred in respect of that land on account of the doctrine of waiver and acquiescence.
The suit in respect of the remaining land, as already mentioned, was decreed.
The plaintiffs suit for possession of the land was also held to be barred by limitation.
On July 13, 1942 Maina Kuer sold her proprietary interest which she had acquired under the auction sale lo Rajendra Prasad Singh and others.
He also held different shares in the other pattis of the two Mahals.
As the mortgagees were dispossessed from some of the lands mortgaged in their favour, they filed a suit for recovery of the mortgage amounts.
Brahmdeo Singh mortgaged with possession his share in the said lands in favour of Sitaram Sahu and Sheogulam Sahu by means of several mortgage deeds.
Final decree was awarded in that suit on June 13, 1925.
In appeal before us Mr. Sarjoo Prasad on behalf of the appellants had made a number of companytentions, but in our opinion, it is number necessary to go into all of them for the appeal is liable to be dismissed on the short ground that the plaintiff appellants have failed to establish that the land in dispute is the same as had been purchased in auction by Maina Kuer as per sale certificate dated February 26, 1935 and was thereafter leased on her behalf in favour of the appellants as per two lease deeds dated September 27 and 30, 1940.
Proprietorship rights in each patti were calculated as 16 annas.
The trial companyrt dismissed the suit in respect of 28.36 acres of land on the ground that the defendants had built their houses on that land.
In execution of that decree proprietary interest of Brahmdeo Singh in Mahal Shivpur Diar Nambari and Mahal Shivpur Diar Gangbarar Shumali were auctioned on June 15, 1932 and was purchased by Maine Kuer, widow of Sitaram Sahu mortgagee.
The plaintiffs were also held entitled to recover mesne profits from defendants who might be found in possession of the land decreed.
She got delivery of possession of the land sold in her favour on March and 20, 1935.
4,100.
The land in dispute, it was held, was number shown to be the same as had been purchased by Maina Kuer in auction sale.
Plea was also taken that the defendants had all along remained in possession of the land and the plaintiffs suit was barred by limitation.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
It is number disputed that if on the above view of the matter the appellants are found to have number proved their title to the land in dispute, the question of going into other companytentions would number arise.
On November 9, 1936 Shea Prasad Singh, who held general power of attorney from Maina Kuer, executed a patta lease for seven years in respect of 135 bighas, 15 kathas out of the land purchased by Maina Kuer in favour of Mahadeo Rai and others.
280 of 1953.
Village Shivpur Diar companysists of five Mahals, Shivpuur Diar Nambari, Shivpur Diar Gangbarar Shurnali, Shivpur Diar Gangbarar Janubi, Shivpur Diar Sarju Barar and Shivpur Diar Naubarar.
On appeal by defendants 3, 7, 12 and 14 the Patna High Court accepted the appeal and dismissed the suit in its entirety.
Each of the two Mahals, Shivpur Diar Gangbarar Chummily and Shivpur Diar Nambari has 18 pattis.
Sarjoo Prasad with D. Goburdhun, for the appellants.
S. Desat with D. P. Mukherjee for respondents 3, 4, S, 6 a 14 and is.
3863/ 41.
on appeal the High Court held that the plaintiffs had failed to prove their title to the land in dispute.
Sale certificate was granted to Maine Kuer auction purchaser on February 26, 1935.
Ex parte, for respondents 1, 2, 6, 7 to 13 16 17.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KHANNA, J. The plaintiff appellants field a suit in the Court of Subordinate Judge against 41 defendants for a declaration of their title to land measuring 142 bighas, 17 kathas described in the schedule to the plaint situated in village Shivpur Diar in District Shahbad.
Prayer was also made for delivery of possession of the land and for mesne profits amounting to Rs.
