The effect of the order of remand was that so far as plaintiffs case that he had acquired title by prescription was companycerned, it was finally decided against him.
Hence, this appeal by special leave.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 30 9 1970 of the Patna High Court in Appeal from Appellate Decree No.
Certainly by the Hukumnama Ext.
733 of 1967.
S. Desai, D. N. Mukherjee and N. R. Chaudhury for the Appellant.
K. Sinha and S. K. Sinha for the Respondent.
As discussed above, the High Court has number at all cared even to go through the evidence regarding the nature of the acts said to have been companymitted by the appellant number to find out whether they were merely sporadic or incidental.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The defendant filed an appeal before the Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi Chota Nagpur which after a companysideration of the evidence affirmed the finding of the trial companyrt and maintained the decree of the trial companyrt on both points.
Apart from the question of title, the plaintiff further pleaded that even if the land belonged to the defendant municipality, he had acquired title by prescription by being in possession of the land to the knowledge of the municipality for more than 30 years, that is to say, from 1912 to 1957.
I of Ranchi Municipality on the ground that he had acquired title to the land by virtue of a Hukumnama granted to him by the landlord as far back as 17th April, 1912 which is Exhibit 18.
It appear that prior to the suit, proceedings under s. 145 were started between the parties in which the Magistrate found that the plaintiff was number in possession but upheld the possession of the defendant on the land until evicted in due companyrse of law.
5 is for the very first year after the settlement and is dated 20 5 1913.
Thereafter, the respondent went up in second appeal to the High Court which was heard by a single Judge of the Court who held that there was numberclear evidence to show that the plaintiff had obtained title by adverse possession and by his judgment of 17 2 1967 hereinafter to be referred to as the first judgment remanded the case to the trial companyrt for a decision only on the question of title.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by FAZAL ALI, J. This is a plaintiffs appeal by special leave against a judgment and decree of the Patna High Court dated 30th September, 1970 and arises in the following circumstances The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of his title and recovery of possession and also a permanent injunction restraining the defendant municipality from disturbing the possession of the plaintiff.
1034 of 1971.
1735, Ward No.
The trial companyrt accepted the plaintiffs case and decreed the plaintiffs suit both on the question of title and adverse possession.
In the suit the plaintiff based his claim in respect of plot No.
The plaintiff then went up in appeal to the High Court which affirmed the finding of the Additional Judicial Commissioner and dismissed the appeal by its judgment of 30 9 1967 hereinafter referred to as the second judgment .
