Suba Manjhi vs Budhan Manjhi And Ors. on 30 November, 2000

0
104
Jharkhand High Court
Suba Manjhi vs Budhan Manjhi And Ors. on 30 November, 2000
Author: G Sharma
Bench: G Sharma


JUDGMENT

Gurusharan Sharma, J.

1. Plaintiff filed suit for declaration of his raiyati occupancy right over the land, detailed in Schedule A to the plaint, for confirmation of possession and in alternative for recovery of possession and for permanent injunction against the defendants.

2. Plaintiffs case was that Diwan Manjhi had two wives. Plaintiff was born from his first wife, whereas defendants 1 and 2 were born from his second wife. Mostt. Karami. Plaintiff claimed to have separately reclaimed about 8.64 acres land, detailed in Schedule A to the plaint and got rent assessed therefore by Deputy Commissioner. Hazaribagh, vide Misc. Case No. 32 of 1948.

3. Defendants 1 and 2 contested the suit claiming their l/3rd share each in the

northern side of each plot, except in plot No. 1054/79, wherein they got their 2/3rd share in eastern portion.

4. There was a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of suit land between the parties, which was decided against the plaintiff.

5. Trial Court dismissed the suit holding that plaintiff miserably failed to prove that he had only reclaimed the suit land and constructed the old house and was thereafter in exclusive possession thereof. On the other hand, defendants proved their right, title, interest and possession over the suit land.

6. However, it was held that defendants failed to prove that suit lands were partitioned by metes and bounds along with plaintiff, after death of their father, Dewan Manjhi.

7. Appeal filed by the plaintiff against the trial Court’s decree was also dismissed and trial Court’s findings were affirmed.

8. I find that both the courts below recorded findings of fact that plaintiff failed to prove exclusive possession of the suit land by him. No separate issue was framed on the point of partition. Though parties claimed partition, but they were not able to prove partition by metes and bounds.

9. I, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree in this Second Appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed, but without costs.

10. Second appeal dismissed.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *