Jharkhand High CourtBudhni Devi And Ors. vs Ashutosh Sharma And Ors. on 9 January, 2006Equivalent citations: [2006(2)JCR92(JHR)], 2006 A I H C 1562Author:N.N. TiwariBench:N.N. TiwariORDER
 

N.N. Tiwari, J.1. Heard.2. This second appeal has been preferred by the defendants/appellants/ respondents.3. The plaintiffs/appellants/respondents filed a suit in the Court below for declaration of their right, title and interest in respect of the suit lands, described in Scheduled B of the plaint. The plaintiffs also prayed for recovery of possession and for injunction restraining the respondent not to raise any construction or structure over the suit land. The suit land measuring 3/4 decimals, appertains to Khata No. 566, Plot No. 53351/7833 of Maufa Chas, District Bokaro. The plaintiffs case is that an area of 3 decimals of the said plot was purchased by one Ram Jagnania from Nagarmal Jagnania with specific boundary. Originally the said land measuring an area of 31 decimals was settled to one Anu Gope. He having been in peaceful possession, had sold that entire land to one Washi Jagnania and Banbari Lal Jagnania by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 29.9.1966. The said purchasers came in possession of the said land and subsequently transferred an area of 3 decimal to Nagarmal Jagnania by registered sale deed dated 14.6.1968. The said purchasers constructed a Gumti (Shed) over the same. In the year, 1976, the defendants were allowed to raise a temporary shed of bamboo shoots over a portion of the land. Taking undue advantage of the same, he claimed himself as a privilege tenant and applied for a parcha under the provisions ofBihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Actand a parcha was allegedly granted in his favour. The said order for granting parcha was challenged in a writ petition being CWJC No. 871 of 1979 by the plaintiffs and the order was quashed" and the said parcha was cancelled.4. The defendants claimed acquisition of right and title over the suit land by adverse possession. However, there was no proper pleading to constitute a case of adverse possession.5. The trial Court framed several issues and decided almost all the issues against the plaintiffs and held that the suit is not maintainable on the ground that the description of the suit plot was vague. The trial Court dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs then preferred regular appeal before the District Judge, Bokaro i.e. T.A. No. 3 of 2001. The said appeal was heard and finally decided by the 4th Additional District Judge, Bokaro, The learned lower appellate Court thoroughly dealt with the case of the parties and scrutinized the evidences on record and after due consideration of the provisions of law, came to the finding that there was no infirmity in the plaintiffs suit. The learned lower appellate Court upheld the settlement made in favour of raiyats as also the subsequent sale deed which was followed by the rent receipts granted by the State of Bihar and held that there was no proper pleading of settling up of the claim of adverse possession and that the defendants could not establish their title by adverse possession. Learned lower appellate Court held that the plaintiffs have got right, title and interest and they are entitled for recovery of Schedule B land and decreed the suit and allowed the appeal.6. Mr. Amar Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants assailed the judgment of the learned lower appellate Court on the ground that the learned lower appellate Court has not properly considered the pleadings of the defendants and the materials available on record and he has come to an erroneous finding.7. After going through the impugned judgment and decree of the learned lower appellate Court, I find that the learned lower appellate Court has thoroughly considered the pleadings, materials and evidences available on record and has also appreciated the provisions of law properly, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment and decree of the learned lower appellate Court leading to any error giving rise to any substantial question of law, to be decided in this appeal. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.