IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.4 of 2004 1. RAMAYAN RAM. 2. NARAYAN RAM. BOTH SONS OF LATE BHATUMAN RAM @ JAGARNATH RAM. 3. NAKCHHED RAM. 4. AKALU RAM. BOTH SONS OF LATE BACHHA RAM. 5. RAMESHWAR RAM, SON OF RAGHUNATH RAM. ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE-PATKHAULI, P.S. JOGAPATTI, DISTRICT-WEST CHAMPARAN. …………………........DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS-APPELLANTS. Versus 1. BINDESHWARI SAH, SON OF LATE DARHU SAH. 2. DHANESHWAR PRASAD. 3. PRABHU PRASAD. BOTH SONS OF BINDESHWARI SAH. 4. BHARAT PRASAD, SON OF BINDESHWARI PRASAD SAH. ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-PATKHAULI, P.O. MUSAHARI VIA-CHUHARI, P.S. JOGAPATTI (SANICHARI), DISTRICT- WEST CHAMPARAN……………….PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the Appellants : Mr. Narmadeshwar Jha, Advocate. For the Respondent No.1 : Mr. Ram Kishun Prasad, Advocate. ------------ 13. 20.7.2010. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the respondent no.1. The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 17.9.2003 passed by the 3rd Additional District Judge, West Champaran at Bettiah passed in Title Appeal No.12 of 2000, whereby he had affirmed the 2 judgment and decree dated 23.3.2000 passed by the Munsif, West Champaran at Bettiah in Title Suit No.163 of 1999. The plaintiffs-respondents have brought the suit for grant of relief of damages caused by the defendants to the tune of Rs.2450/- only as detailed in Schedule-II of the plaint. However, subsequently, by order dated 13.7.1999, the case, which was earlier instituted as a Money Suit, however, later on had been numbered as a Title Suit, though the relief claimed remained to be money decree for damages to the tune of Rs.2450/-. The case of the plaintiff is that the orchard in dispute, as detailed in Schedule-I, of Mauja-Bahuarwa, Thana- Jogapatti, appertaining to Survey Khata No.19, Plot Nos.1056 as well as 1058 was acquired by the Cooperative Society, Pathkhauli on auction sale and accordingly sale certificate was prepared and delivery of possession was given. Subsequently, the aforesaid Cooperative Society allotted the lands in favour of its member, Subhnarayan Upadhaya, by a registered sale deed dated 17.12.1937 on payment of consideration of money of Rs.700/-. Subsequently upon partition, the suit property was allotted as 1/4th share each to all the four sons of the aforesaid Subhnarayan Upadhaya, who were the persons, who came in 3 possession of the lands and transferred to several persons including the plaintiffs nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 putting them in possession. Thereafter, it is the case of the plaintiffs that there had been a dispute with regard to the possession of the part of the aforesaid lands due to which a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. was initiated, which was subsequently converted into a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and in that proceeding the possession of the plaintiffs was accepted. That order was challenged by filing a Criminal Revision No.253 of 1985, which was dismissed by this Court. Subsequently, during the Chakbandi operation, the land was entered in the name of the plaintiffs. However, on 30th of March, 1998, the defendants severed seasam trees and forcibly harvested the fruits etc. and destroyed litchi trees causing damage to the tune of Rs.2450/-. Hence, this suit has been filed. The defendants filed written statement and have raised the point that the plaintiffs should pay the ad valorem court fee and the suit valuation is improper. The defendants denied the allegations made by the plaintiffs and had stated that the falsity of the sale certificate is evident as there is no proof of any possession of the plaintiffs or their vendor rather it has been stated that in fact they are coming in peaceful possession of the 4 same since long. The trial court framed the issues and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs. During the pendency of the suit, the question of suit valuation as well as the payment of court fee was raised by the defendants which was decided by the court concerned against them and the same was challenged by filing Civil Revision. However, during the pendency of the Civil Revision, the suit itself had been decided. The defendants had cross examined two witnesses. However, thereafter, they left cross examining the witnesses produced on behalf of the plaintiffs and had not produced their witnesses. The judgment and decree passed by the trial court were challenged in appeal and the appeal was also dismissed, as a result of which the defendants have preferred this Second Appeal. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the suit valuation of the property would be more than Rs.1 lac and, as such, the court of Munsif was not competent to hold the trial due to the lack of pecuniary jurisdiction. However, the second point raised on behalf of the appellants is that though there is sale certificate on record but there is no evidence that in lieu of that sale certificate, delivery of possession was also effected in favour of the Cooperative Society concerned. It has further been submitted that in the 5 aforesaid sale certificate, the number of plot had been written as 956 whereas the disputed plot is 1056. Thus, it had been submitted that the court concerned has come to a wrong conclusion that due to the aforesaid auction sale and the subsequent transaction, the plaintiffs had acquired right, title and interest over the lands. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.1 submitted that the issue of suit valuation and court fee was dealt with earlier by the trial court concerned and a plea of the plaintiffs-respondents was rejected vide order dated 25.8.1999. The court concerned had come to the conclusion that though for determination of the dispute regarding the grant of relief to the tune of Rs.2450/- to the plaintiffs, it was essential to frame issue as to whether the plaintiffs are having title and possession or not but what would ultimately be granted by way of relief to the plaintiffs would be a money decree as Rs.2450/- only. Learned counsel had further submitted that the court concerned, after scrutiny of the materials on record, had come to the conclusion that the concerned plot has been entered as the plot no.956 in the sale certificate but in the subsequent documents, i.e., sale deed, jamabandi, rent receipts and in Section 144 and 145 Cr.P.C. 6 proceeding, the plot number has been shown as 1056. Though the Boundary given in the sale certificate as well as other documents tally with each other but the plot number of the sale certificate does not tally, which is obviously a typographical error. It is well settled that where there is dispute regarding the plot number, the boundary will always prevail and, thus, it has been held that the sale certificate was with regard to the suit land itself. It had further been contended that there has been concurrent finding after appreciation of evidence that the plaintiffs are in possession of the land in dispute. Upon hearing the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is also of the opinion that there is nothing on record to show that the suit valuation of the Schedule-II property was more than Rs.1 lac and the plaintiffs had only claimed for a relief of money decree as Rs.2450/- only. There is also nothing on record to show that even the price of the lands upon which the aforesaid severed trees were standing exceeded Rs.1 lac at the time of filing of the suit. Learned counsel for the appellants had tried to impress upon this Court that the plaintiffs’ witness, P.W.2, had stated in paragraph no.5 of his cross examination that the price of the land in his village is Rs.9000/- per katha. However, that was obviously in reply to the suggestion of 7 question put to him by the witnesses. This witness had stated that he lives in Mauja- Pathakhauli whereas the suit land is shown in Schedule-II of Mauza- Bahuarwa. Thus, it is clear that this witness has stated about the price of land of Mauza- Pathakhauli and not of Bahuarwa wherein the suit land is situated. Thus, the aforesaid evidence does not come to the help to the appellants. So far as the question of title and possession is concerned, the same has been discussed in detail by the trial court as well as the appellate court. Several documents have been filed on behalf of the appellants including the sale certificate concerned, sale deeds concerned and several rent receipts showing jamabandi in favour of the plaintiffs as well as the order passed in a proceedings under Sections 144 and 145 Cr.P.C. and thereafter entry in the Chakbandi proceedings. Apart from the above, the witnesses have also been examined on the point of possession by the plaintiffs and upon scrutiny of all the evidence, documentary as well as oral, both the courts concerned have come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are in possession of the land as a title holder and, thus, have passed the decree in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents. Before this Court also, learned counsel for the appellants could not point out any substantial error which may lead to substantial question of law. 8 As a result, this appeal being devoid of any merit is, accordingly, dismissed. P.S. (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J)