The land in suit appertains to Khata No.
The High Court companyfirmed these findings.
3 The Raja instituted the suit out of which this appeal arises for a declaration that the land in suit was his Bakasht and the respondents were unlawfully in possession of it.
District Judge of Motihari in favour of Raja Mohan Bikram Shah the proprietor of the Ramnager Raj.
D, having resisted throughout the claim of the respondents.
The companyduct of the Ramnager Raj shortly after the expiry of the period companyered by the Sadaua Pataua deed establishes that the right of the respondents to possess the land in suit was seriously disputed.
It held that the respondents were number inducted upon the land in suit by the Naraipur Concern and they had number acquired any right of occupancy by virtue of the alleged settlement.
Against this decision the respondents appealed to the High Court which reversed the decision of the trial Court and dismissed the suit.
They had also pleaded adverse possession but this plea was abandoned at the trial.
The Additional District Judge of Motihari decreed the suit, leaving the determination of the amount of mesne profits to be decided in a subsequent proceeding.
Exhibit D was filed by the Naraipur Concern on 10 3 1941, about ten days before the expiry of the period under the Sadaua Pataua deed.
On 19 3 1910, the Raja executed a registered Sadaua Pataua deed in favour of Messrs. H. Murrey and G. Murrey, hereinafter referred to as the Naraipur Concern, with respect to 17 villages including village Ratni for a period of 31 years.
A, and the receipts filed by the respondents showing payment of hunda rent were number genuine.
10 of 1940 41.
As the dispute was likely to result in a breach of the peace, proceedings under Section 144, Criminal P. C. were drawn up by a Magistrate.
The trial companyrt was of the opinion that the Hukumnama, Ex.
After his death the appellants were substituted in his place and stead and they filed an application in the High Court for a certificate for leave to appeal to this Court which was granted.
The respondents resisted the suit on the ground that the land in suit had been permanently settled with them by the Naraipur Concern as Raiyats under a Patta Hunda Ex.
The former case was numbered 9 of 1940 41 and the latter No.
He prayed for recovery Of possession, mesne profits and interest pendente lite as well as future interest.
Two Rent Commutation cases were filed on 7 9 1940, one by the respondent Mangni Mahto and others, and the other by the respondent Chedi Mahto.
2, 87 and 89 in village Ratni were companycerned, it was disputed that there had been any settlement of these plots by the Naraipur Concern in the name of Mangni Mahto and Tejman Mahto.
D filed by.
It would appear from the order of the Magistrate Ex.
A described in this case as a hukumnama dated 5 3 1918, that they were settled Raiyats of village Ratni and had been in possession of the land for more than 20 years and that they had acquired occupancy rights in the land in suit.
Both the Naraipur Concern and the Ramnager Raj were parties to the companymutation proceedings.
Jafer Imam, J. This is an appeal against the decree of the Patna High Court setting aside the decree passed by the Addl.
2, 87 and 89.
2 of village Ratni, companysisting of plot Nos.
