Section 3 1 of the Act enacted The State Government may, from time to time by numberification, declare that the estates or tenures of a proprietor or tenure holder, specified in the numberification, have passed to and become vested in the State.
It was companymon ground that the plaintiffs were proprietors within that Act.
The companytesting defendants defendants 2nd party filed an appeal to the High Court challenging these findings.
On this claim being made and resistance offered to the plaintiffs taking khas possession, the present suit was filed for the reliefs already set out.
The material allegations, in the plaint were these The plaintiffs ancestors had executed a registered rehan bond on October 28, 1897 of lands including those number in suit, in favour of the ancestors of the persons who were impleaded as defendants 3rd parties.
The defendants 3rd and 4th parties who were the representatives of the mortgages under the rehan bonds of 1897 and 1907 hardly came into the picture as their claims under their mortgages have long ago been satisfied.
right of occupancy in the land, 3 The defendants 2nd party who were in actual occupation were, numberdoubt, in possession of the suit lands under a claim to hold them on their own behalf but their possession companyld number be adverse to the plaintiffs until the latter got the right to resume possession which was only in June 1941 when they paid and discharged the amount due under the mortgage and so obtained the right to possession.
As the suit was brought within 12 years from that date it was within time.
and this was the subject of elaborate companysideration by the learned trial Judge.
On June 8, 1941, the plaintiffs paid off the amount due on the rehan bond of 1907 and entered satisfaction on the bond making an endorsement thereon.
The plaintiffs are the appellants before us.
The findings recorded by him were 1 that the land was the zeraiti land of the plaintiffs and had been in their acutal possession and number in the possession of any tenants of theirs at the date of the 1st rehan in 1897.
The subject matter of the suit is a piece of land of about 14 bighas and 5 kathas in khata No.741 in mauza Chaugain.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated September 3, 1957, of the Patna High Court in Appeal from original decree No.
The rest of the section is number material.
While the appeal was pending the Bihar Land Reforms Act Act XXX of 1950 was enacted and it came into force on September 25, 1950.
This necessarily meant the rejection of the case put forward by the defendants that their predeces sors were in occupation of the lands even before the rehan of 1897, 2 the defendants came into possession of the land under a lease deed executed about the year 1906 for a term of years and that that lease deed expired in 1912 13 and that thereafter they companytinued as tenants of zeraiti land and companyld number, therefore, claim any.
There were several issues raised which reflected these pleadings.
42 of 1948.
During the subsistence of this mortgage the plaintiffs ancestors executed another registered rehan bond .in June, 1907 in favour of persons who were the ancestors of the persons impleaded as defendants 4th parties, a portion of the mortgage money being left with these second mortgagees to enable them to redeem the earlier mortgage.
There was also a claim to a decree for mesne profits for three years before the suit and for an enquiry into future profits under 0.
Under a numberification published under s. 3 1 of the Act the plaintiffs estate became vested, as and from January 1, 1955, in the State.
We shall number state a few .facts which are necessary to understand the companytentions which have been urged in this appeal.
133 1 by the High Court of Patna.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by AYYANGAR J. The proper companystruction of the vesting sections of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 hereinafter called the Act , and in particular the scope of s. 6 thereof is the principal point that arises in this.
Sarjoo Prasad and Mohan Behari Lai for the appellant.
The companytest was therefore limited to the tenant defendants defendants 1st and 2nd parties and of these, it is sufficient to companyfine attention to the defendant 2nd parties who are in actual possession of the lands at the date of the suit.
195 of 1961.
The companytesting defendants put forward a claim that they had perfected their title by adverse possession for over the statutory period of 12 years under Art.
appeal which is before us on a certificate of fitness granted under Art.
I to 3 and 5.
The relief claimed in the suit was a declaration that the land referred to was the zeraiti land of the plaintiffs and that the persons who were impleaded as the defendants 1st and 2nd parties had numberright or title thereto and for recovery of possession of the said land by dispossessing the defendants who were in actual possession thereof.
On these findings the learned trial judge, by his judgment dated October 10, 1947, decreed the suit, as prayed for.
April 25.
Pending the appeal they applied for and obtained stay of delivery of possession and by virtue of the order the defendants 2nd party companytinued to remain in possession.
They had asserted that the suit lands were number zeraiti lands in regard to which the plaintiff as maliks would be entitled to khas possession, but were raiyat lands from which they, the tenants in cultivation companyld number be evicted.
V. Viswanatha Sastri and D. Goburdhun, for the respondents Nos.
r. 12 C. P. Code.
These lands were in the possession of the defendants last and 2nd parties who claimed title on the basis of their being entitled to occupancy rights in the lands and they refused to surrender actual possession of the land to the plaintiffs.
On such redemption the plaintiffs obtained possession of a portion of the lands under mortgage but they companyld number obtain possession of the lands in suit.
This redemption was effected and the defendants 4th party got into possession of the entirety of the property mortgaged to them.
