S.A. No. 23 of 2002. Case: Md. Zafir Mian alias Md. Zafir Alam and Ors. Vs Sk. Mansoor Alam and Anr.. High Court of Patna (India)

Case NumberS.A. No. 23 of 2002
JudgesS.K. Katriar , J.
IssueIndian Evidence Act - Sections 64, 65; Court Fees Act, 1870 - Section 7; Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.) - Section 100
Citation2006 (3) PLJR 595
Judgement DateAugust 04, 2006
CourtHigh Court of Patna (India)

Judgment:

S.K. Katriar, J.

  1. Heard Mr. R.K. Verma for the appellants, and Mr. Sidheshwari Prasad Singh for the respondents.

  2. The defendants are the appellants against a judgment of affirmance. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18.10.2001, passed by the learned 6th Additional District Judge, West Champaran, Bettiah, in Title Appeal No. 84 of 1995 (Md. Zafir Mian and Ors. v. SK. Mansoor Alam and Ors.), whereby he has dismissed the appeal preferred by the defendants, and has upheld the judgment and decree dated 26.9.1995, passed by the learned Sub-Judge-IV, Bettrah, in Title Suit No. 227 of 1988 (Eviction) (Sk. Mansoor Alam and Ors v. Sk. Jafir Mian and Ors.). The learned trial court had decreed the suit for eviction which has been upheld by the learned court of appeal below. We shall go by the description of the parties occurring in the plaint.

  3. The plaintiffs instituted the suit-stating that plot Nos.2943, 2939, 2941 and 2938, 2935, 2944 are situate in the township of Bettiah, are adjoining each other. The plaintiffs purchased eleven dhoors of land of plot Nos.2939 and 2943 from Sk. Md. Ajahar Alam through a registered deed dated 27.6.1961, and thereafter came in possession. Sk. Azahar Alam also gave possession of 4 dhoors of land on 31.1.1963 itself after taking consideration money and executed sale deed in favour of plaintiff No. 2. Azahar Alam was in possession of some portion of plot Nos.2938 and 2942. Ajahar Alam gave possession of portion of land to the plaintiffs which was in his possession. It is further stated that plot No. 2935 was also contiguous to plot No. 2944.

    3.1) The further case of the plaintiffs is that the municipal authority duly sanctioned the construction plan on 23.3.1963 in the name of plaintiff No. 1. The plaintiffs constructed pucca house in the year 1961, and started living in the house and continue to do so.

    3.2) The further case of the plaintiffs is that after death of Mohammad Alam and Sah Alam, Mahmood Alam and Sk. Md. Najir Alam asserted their claims over plot No. 2943. For the purpose of settling the dispute for ever, both executed registered sale-deed on 6.9.1983 with regard to the aforesaid land. The plaintiffs have been coming in peaceful possession over the entire land of plot Nos. 2938, 2942, 2935, 2943 and 2939 and the plaintiffs have thus perfected their title by purchasing the land and adverse possession. The defendants are full brothers and they have purchased plot No. 2944 in the year 1955. By taking some portion of plot No. 2942, the defendants constructed a pucca house and they were living therein.

    3.3) It is further stated that the defendants later on separated and Jafir Mian, defendant No. 1, felt difficulties in his accommodation in the aforesaid house. They are the relations of the plaintiffs and, therefore, the defendants requested the plaintiffs to give north portion of his house on rent to defendant No. 1. The defendants had intended to construct the first floor of his house on plot No. 2944, and would thereafter vacate the house of the plaintiffs. Therefore, the plaintiffs let out the northern portion of their house at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month orally due to relationship and out of affection between the parties. The defendants had promised to vacate the house within one year.

    3.4) The further case of the plaintiffs is that defendant No. 1 paid rent till December 1987, and in lieu thereof the plaintiff granted receipt on plain paper, but defendant No. 1 stopped making payment of rent from January 1988 in spite of repeated demands. On account of the relationship between the parties, the plaintiffs did not coerce the defendants, but the plaintiffs bona fide require the suit, premises for their own use and occupation.

  4. The defendants in their written statement denied the title of the plaintiffs to the suit premises. There is no relationship of landlord and tenant. The plaintiffs have got no concern with the suit land rather the defendants are in possession of the same, having their residential house on plot Nos. 2942, 2943 and 2944. The defendants have further stated that some mischief has been done in the sketch map filed on behalf of the plaintiffs and forgery has been committed by the plaintiffs in the map. The plaintiffs never constructed the said house and they never came in possession over the suit premises, The plaintiffs have wrongly stated that they purchased lands of plot No. 2943 from Md. Alam and Sah alam on 6.9...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT