Sita Ram Mahto vs Jamuna Mishra And Ors on 30 April, 2025

0
158

in Misc. Case No. 25/70-71 ordered for rectification.

The defendant denied the claim of the plaintiffs that they have
Patna High Court SA No.39 of 1991 dt.30-04-2025

taken settlement in respect of the entire Plot No. 395, 398 and

75 decimal out of the Plot No. 394. Plaintiffs, in collusion with

the employees of the revenue office of Madanpur block, made

some interpolation in the certified copy of the return and on that

basis applied for opening of the demand in his name with

respect to the land in the suit. The defendant filed a petition of

objection and ultimately the proceeding was dropped on

13.07.1973. Subsequently, the plaintiff no. 1 surreptitiously got

the demand opened in his name for the disputed land. The

plaintiffs were never in possession of the suit land and they have

never planted any trees. The defendant claimed that he has been

coming in possession of the suit land and prior to him his father

was in possession of the same land and he has planted trees in

the disputed land. Further case of the defendant is that he and

his father had executed a mortgage bond in favour of one Ram

Khelawan Thakur with respect to the suit land and that

mortgage bond was redeemed by the defendant. The defendant

also claimed that vesting of the zamindari of ex-landlord Ganga

Pd. Singh took place in the year 1955 and not in the year 1952- 53.

Proceeding under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. was rightly decided in

favour of the defendant and all allegation on contrary are false.

One Smt. Padmawati Devi was settlee of landlord in Plot No.
Patna High Court SA No.39 of 1991 dt.30-04-2025

394, Khata No. 127 and she was in possession thereon. She

herself sold her land to different persons including the

answering defendant by virtue of registered sale deeds and the

purchasers are in possession and have been paying rent and

getting receipts. Sale deed of the defendant is dated 12.06.1971

for 62 decimals land of Plot No. 394. He has amalgamated some

of the lands of Plot No. 394 with the disputed land. Apart from

that some portions of adjacent parti land of gairmajarua malik

has been amalgamated with disputed land.

[ad_1]

Source link

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here