Radheyshyam Chourasia vs Chanda Devi & Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 2612 Jhar

                                1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                 (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)
                    S. A. No. 235 of 2015
                              ......

Radheyshyam Chourasia ........... Appellant Versus Chanda Devi & Others ........ Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO (Through : Video Conferencing) .......

For the Appellant : Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, Advocate.

Mr. Kundan Kumar Ambastha, Advocate.

For the Respondents :

.......

06/29.07.2021 Heard, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha assisted by learned counsel, Mr. Kundan Kumar Ambastha.

The second appeal has been preferred by defendant / appellant / appellant against the concurrent findings of two courts i.e. Judgment dated 31.03.2015 and decree signed on 07.04.2015 passed by learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-I, Gumla in Title Appeal No. 25/2006 affirming the Judgment dated 31.03.2006 and decree signed on 15.04.2006 passed by learned Additional Munsif, Gumla in Eviction Title Suit No. 19/2002, whereby the suit of the plaintiffs has been decreed.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that as per the case of the plaintiffs, the suit land comprising of 0.04 decimals of land of Plot No. 581, Khata No. 155, upon which the plaintiffs have claiming on the basis of heirs of recorded tenant Chaturgun Das, son of Khedu Das.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the plaintiffs have further submitted before the learned trial court, that the defendant is the tenant on monthly rent of Rs. 200/- and he is not vacating the suit premises.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the case of the defendant is that the Arjun Das being the son of Jagdeo Das was in possession of the land, which has been mentioned in R.S. Survey Settlement in the remarks column. The said Arjun Das sold 2 decimals of land to the defendant in the year 1980, as such, the courts below have committed an error with regard to limitation for

dispossessing a person, who is in possession of a land and sold the land to the defendant.

Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the single Judge of this Court passed in the case of Dwarika Sonar and Others Vs. Most. Bilguli & Others reported in (2003) 2 JLJR 708 and another judgment passed in the case of Abdul Rahim & Others Vs. Sk. Abdul Zabar & Others reported in (2009) 6 SCC 160.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appeal may be admitted on the substantial question of law with regard to the limitation for dispossession of a person from the land, which was in possession of the vendor of the defendant, from whom the defendant has purchased the land and even if the sale deed executed in favour of the defendant by son of Jagdeo Das, who was in possession of the land is void, that has to be assailed for cancellation and then only recovery of possession can be made.

After hearing learned counsel for the appellants and perusing the impugned award, it appears that the plaintiffs Laxman Das and others have preferred the suit for eviction of the defendant Radheshyam Chourasia from the suit premises and for declaration of right and title of the plaintiffs over the properties including land being Khata No. 155, Plot No. 581, Area-0.04 decimal as mentioned in the Schedule of the Plaint.

The admitted case of the parties as per their pleadings is that in the Revisional Survey, suit land and holding had been recorded in the name of Chaturgun Das, son of Khedu Das, but in remark column, possession of the suit land and holding was shown in the name of Jagdeo Das.

Further case of the plaintiffs is that before the Revisional Survey, Khedu Das died leaving behind his son Chaturgun Das and married daughter Bhano Devi, who was married with Jagdeo Das of Village - Palidih, Simdega and Jagdeo Das was brought in the suit premises prior to R.S. Operation as a licensee of Chaturgun Das as Chaturgun Das was physically weak. Jagdeo Das with the permission of Chaturgun Das was living in the house of Plot No. 581, but during the R.S. Operation, he has wrongly entered his name

in the remark's column in connivance with survey officials. Jagdeo Das had no heirs from the wedlock with Bhano Devi and subsequently, she died few years after the revisional survey. Thereafter, Jagdeo Das started living with one Rajput lady of Village

- Karaundi and left the house of R.S. Plot No. 581 and from the said relationship with the said lady, two sons namely, Arjun Das and Phocha Das were born and they were never in possession and there was no document ever made in the name of Jagdeo Das or Arjun Das.

Further, the case of the plaintiffs is that the entire plot no. 582 of R.S. Khata No. 155 has earlier been sold to Shyamal Sahu and Madan Sahu, through two registered sale deed, which clearly proves that any sale deed if executed by Arjun Das in favour of the defendant is a forged document.

Further case of the plaintiffs, that Chaturgun Das died leaving behind his two sons Ghanu Das and Girwar Das. Ganhu Das had one son namely Shankar Das and said Shankar Das died in the year 1979, leaving one minor son, who is the plaintiff no. 2, Kartik Das. Girwar Das died leaving behind one son, who is plaintiff no. 1 Laxman Das. In the year 1979, Shankar Das died, who was the head and guardian of the family and uncle of plaintiff no. 1, was not keeping good health and sound mind. There was no earning member in the family and for which when the defendant requested the Plaintiff no. 1 to let out the suit house to him on the monthly rent of Rs. 200/- per month and it was given on the basis of oral agreement. The defendant has started to live in the suit house since January, 1980. The defendant has not paid rent in the month of November, 2001 to May, 2002 and thus he became the defaulter for non- payment of rent.

Plaintiffs has further prayed that there is personal necessity of the suit premises, as plaintiff no. 2 requires the house for the purpose of solemnization of his marriage and also the son of the plaintiff no. 1 will require the room for his studies.

Further case of the plaintiffs is that the defendant did not paid the due rent on repeated demands and in the month of February, 2002 defendant began to demolish some wall and roof of house and

the defendant began to dug foundation for the construction of wall on vacant land of said plot adjacent to the house premises. Then plaintiffs had filed one proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. vide Case No. M-40/2002 against the defendant which was decided against the plaintiffs. Then, the defendant again started construction of wall day and night. Thereafter again the plaintiff has filed one proceeding under section 144 Cr.P.C. vide Case No. M-231/2002 which was decided against the defendant, thereafter the work of defendant has been stopped.

Further case of the plaintiffs is that during the initiation of proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. defendant has claimed that the house of plot no. 581, area-0.02 out of 0.04 decimals and plot no. 582 area 0.01½ decimals, out of 0.08 decimals have been purchased from Arjun Das on consideration of Rs. 3,000/-, though said deed is illegal and invalid, as such, the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of right, title of the plaintiffs over the suit land alleging that if any sale deed is there in favour of the defendant, the same is void and not binding upon the plaintiffs.

The defendant filed written statement and had submitted that suit is not maintainable in its present form as the suit is barred by law of limitation. Even the suit is grossly undervalued and unless and until the plaintiff did not paid ad-valorem court fee, the suit cannot be proceeded. The suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. The heirs of Jagdeo Das have not been made party in the suit. The suit is hit by the Section 4 of the Specific Relief Act, law of estoppel, waiver, acquiescence and ouster. The plaintiffs have brought the suit under Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 and also declaration of title, which is not permissible in the eyes of law.

It is also the case of the defendant that Jagdeo Das orally purchased the suit land in the year 1923 and constructed house over it and since then Jagdeo Das and his family are in possession within the knowledge of the plaintiff's family and Survey Authority has rightly prepared the R.S. Khatian, R.S. Plot No. 582 was used by Jagdeo Das as Bari.

Further case of the defendant is that Jagdeo Das married with Bhano Devi and blessed with two sons. Bhano Devi died 15 years after her marriage in the suit premises and Jagdeo Das also died in the suit premises. Arjun Das left the suit premises after it was sold to the defendant and began to live in the house of Manohar Singh at Baraik Mohalla, Gumla, till his death. Arjun Das has one son and a daughter. Pocha Das also leaving behind his heirs. Even if there exist any defect of title, the same has been acquired by Jagdeo Das by the law of Adverse Possession.

It has further been submitted that any alleged transaction made by Chaturgun Das for-Plot no. 581 and 582 are illegal and the same is not within the knowledge of the defendant and the same is not binding on Jagdeo Das and his sons.

It has further been submitted that Shankar Das died in good health in the year about 1982 after two years of the purchase of the suit plot. The defendant and Shankar Das had full knowledge of the sale deed dated 28.07.1980 vide Registered Sale Deed No. 1547 dated 28.07.1980.

The property has also been mutated in the name of defendant vide Mutation Case No. 46R27 of 1980-81, after due inquiry within the full knowledge of the plaintiffs and all concerned and since then defendant is living in the suit premises with his family after paying rent to the Government.

Defendant has further submitted that he purchased land of Khata No. 155, Plot No. 582, area 0.0½ acre from Arjun Das vide Registered Sale Deed No. 55 dated 07.01.1986 and amalgamated it by construction with old house, in which defendant is living with his family as owner and not as tenant.

The further case of the defendant is that the defendant is living in the old mud house constructed in the year 1923 and repaired the house, but there was apprehension of collapse of mud wall during rainy season as such, the defendant began to construct the part of the suit premises in November, 2001 and cemented the roof and remodeled the old house. The plaintiff no. 1 has filed one proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. against the defendant, which was dropped on 13.02.2002 and the plaintiff has also filed Case No. M-41/2002,

which was decided on 02.04.2002 in favour of the defendant. The plaintiff has again filed Case No. 231/2002, which was also dropped on 28.05.2002. The defendant never threatened the plaintiffs and he is in possession over the suit premises.

On the basis of the pleadings of both the parties, the learned trial court has framed altogether 14 issues for proper adjudication of the suit, which are as follows: -

(i) Has the suit maintainable in its present form?

(ii) Has the plaintiff's got valid cause of action?

(iii) Is the land in question under R.S. Khata No. 581 corresponding to C.S. Khata No. 108, Plot No. 384?

(iv) Is the R.S. Plot No. 584 corresponding to C.S. Plot No. 384 has been sold by the heirs of Chaturgun Das?

(v) Is the defendant living in Plot No. 581, area 0.02 acres and 582 ares 0.02 acre under R.S. Khata No. 155 since purchase and mutated in Anchal office and have got perfect title and possession within the knowledge of the plaintiffs?

(vi) Whether Jagdeo Das was looking after the work of survey operation and other works of Chaturgun Das being a licensee and he was living in the house with permission of Chaturgun Das?

(vii) Is Jagdeo Das orally purchased the suit land in the year 1923 and constructed a house and got perfect title by law of Adverse Possession?

(viii) Is Jamabandi in the name of Jagdeo Das Gosai, opened after vesting of Zamindari?

(ix) Is said Jagdeo Das left the house after Revisional Survey and was living at Village - Karaundi with his kept.

(x) Is the defendant has taken the suit house on rent in January, 1980 from Laxman Das, plaintiff no. 1?

(xi) Are the alleged sale deed of defendant valid and Arjun Das had right to execute the sale deed to defendant?

(xii) Is the defendant monthly tenant of plaintiff and defendant defalcated in payment of rent and the defendant has not paid rent since November, 2001 to May 2002 and in the month of February, 2002 defendant began to demolish some wall and roof and on vacant land began to dig foundation?

(xiii) Has the plaintiff entitled for any relief or reliefs as claimed for?

(xiv) Is the suit under valued and the plaintiff is bound to pay ad- valorem Court Fee.

The learned trial court has considered all the issues. The contentious issue is Issue No. (xi) i.e. Are the alleged deed of defendant valid and Arjun Das had right to execute the sale deed to defendant?

This issue has been dealt by the learned trial court in para-14 of the judgment under appeal and after discussing the evidences, the learned trial court has held that Arjun Das had no right, title and possession over the land of plot no. 581 and 582 of the suit property. Even the sale deed of the defendant clearly shows that he was allegedly purchased some land from plot no. 582, though he has clearly admitted before the court that entire plot no. 582 had earlier been sold by the successors of Chaturgun Das and the purchasers are living thereon after constructing their house, which also proves that deed of the defendant is not valid.

The trial court has further held that the alleged deed of defendant is not valid and Arjun Das had no right to execute the sale deed to the defendant. Accordingly, the sale deed is found to be a document not binding upon the plaintiff.

So far Issue No. (iii) i.e. Is the land in question under R.S. Khata No. 581 corresponding to C.S. Khata No. 108, Plot No. 384? and Issue No. (iv) i.e. Is the R.S. Plot No. 584 corresponding to C.S. Plot No. 384 has been sold by the heirs of Chaturgun Das? Further Issue No. (v) i.e. Is the defendant living in Plot No. 581, area 0.02 acres and 582 ares 0.02 acre under R.S. Khata No. 155 since purchase and mutated in Anchal office and have got perfect title and possession within the knowledge of the plaintiffs?

These issues nos. (iii), (iv) & (v) have been dealt by the learned trial court in favour of the plaintiffs after perusing Exhibit-4, 4/1, 5 and 5/1, holding that R.S. Khata No. 155, Plot No. 378, 379, 380, 381 and 382 of Gumla Mouza are corresponding to C.S. Khata No. 108, Plot No. 384. Accordingly, the land in question of R.S.

Khata No. 155, Plot No. 581 is corresponding to C.S. Khata No. 108, Plot No. 384.

Further Issue No. (iv) with regard to whether the land of Khata No. 155, R.S. Plot No. 382 total area 0.08 decimals have been sold by the heirs of Chaturgun Das to Shyamal Sahu and Madan Sahu and thereafter, Madan Sahu has also sold his land to Kanhaiya Sahu.

This issue has been discussed by the learned trial court and has held that Exhibit-1 i.e. the C.C. of Registered Sale Deed No. 726/1946 dated 25.04.1946 executed by Girwar Das, son of Chaturgun Das in favour of Shyamlal Sahu for area of 0.05 decimals of land and Exhibit-1/1 i.e. Certified copy of Sale Deed No. 356/1962, both the Exhibits - 1 and 1/1 clearly shows that entire 0.08 decimals land of suit Khata No. 155, Plot No. 382 has been sold by the heirs of Chaturgun Das. The defendant has also admitted this fact while examining D.W.-6 at para-44 & 41 that Shayamlal Sahu has purchased 0.05 decimals of land and Kanaiha Sahu has purchased 0.03 decimals of land from the plot no. 582 and they are residing thereon after constructing their respective house, which also proves the present pleadings of the plaintiffs.

In rebuttal, the defendant has pleaded that the pleadings of the plaintiffs are false, but during cross-examination, defendant has clearly denied the suggestion of the plaintiffs that Shyamlal Sahu and Madan Sahu has purchased land from the heirs of Chaturgun Das, but he did not led any evidence in this regard.

Considering the same, the learned trial court has held that Exhibit-1 & 1/1 which are sea tanker of plaintiffs' case and also corroborated by the defendant in his cross-examination, as such, R.S. Plot No. 582 correspondence from C.S. Plot No. 384 has been sold by heir of Chaturgun Das.

So far Issue No. (v) that whether defendant is living in plot no 581,area 0.02 acre and plot no. 582, area 0.02 acre under R.S. Khata No. 155 since the purchase and also mutated his name in Anchal Office and have got perfect title and possession within the knowledge of the plaintiffs, has been discussed at Para-15 of the learned trial court judgment, where it has been held that the

documents of the defendant Exhibits-A & A/1 i.e. rent receipt of the suit land including other land, Exhibit-B i.e. Sale Deed No. 55 dated 07.01.1986, Exhibit-F i.e. Sale Deed no. 1541 dated 28.07.1986, Exhibit-C i.e. the C.C. of Mutation Case No. 46R27/1980-81 and Exhibit-G, fully corroborates the pleadings of the defendant. Moreover, all the defendant's witnesses also corroborate the pleadings of the defendant.

The trial court after considering the evidence has held that deed of defendant Exhibit-B & F are not valid deeds, so mutation on the basis of an invalid deed has got no force. Moreover, it is evident from the testimony of D.W.-6 and Exhibits-1 & 1/1 that with respect to entire Plot No. 582 has earlier been sold by the successors of Chaturgun Das and respective purchasers are in the possession over their respective lands. So how the defendant got possession over that land and how inquiry officer of Circle Office finds the defendant in the possession over the plot no. 582.

The trial court had hold that the deeds of the defendant are not valid deed, as the executant of the said deeds had no right, title and possession over the suit land including the land of Plot No. 582. Hence, mutation on the basis of said invalid deed have got no force and the defendant have not got perfect title and possession on the basis of said invalid deed, even it was not known to the plaintiffs. Accordingly, this issue has also been decided against the defendant.

So far Issue No. (xi) i.e. Are the alleged sale deed of defendant valid and Arjun Das had right to execute the sale deed to defendant is concerned, this issue has been discussed at para-14 of trial court judgment by holding that even the sale deed of the defendant clearly shows that he was allegedly purchased some land from Plot No. 582, though he has clearly admitted before the Court that entire plot no. 582 had earlier been sold by the successors of Chaturgun Das and purchasers are living thereon after constructing their house, which also proves that deed of defendant is not valid.

So far Issue No. (xii) i.e. Is the defendant monthly tenant of plaintiff and defendant defaulted in payment of rent and the defendant has not paid rent since November, 2001 to May 2002 and in the month of February, 2002 defendant began to demolish some

wall and roof and on vacant land began to dig foundation is concerned, this issue has also been discussed at para-17 by giving finding by the learned trial court that tenant of the plaintiffs defendant has defaulted in payment of rent and the defendant has not paid rent since November 2001 to May, 2002. With regard to demolition, the same has also been found correct as the same has been admitted by the defendant.

So far valuation of suit, which is Issue No. (xiv) is concerned, that has also been discussed at para-18 of trial court judgment and learned trial court has held that the defendant has not led any evidence and as per the evidence of P.W.-7 in para-14 of his cross- examination, the value of the suit premises is Rs. 3,50,000/- and the learned trial court has held that it is suit for declaration of right and title of the plaintiffs over the suit premises and also for recovery of possession, but plaintiff filed the suit in eviction form. Accordingly, the learned trial court has held plaintiffs are bound to pay ad- voleram court fees, but no evidence has been led by defendant with regard to valuation. It also appears to learned trial court that defendant has allegedly purchased 0.3½ decimals land including suit house for consideration of Rs. 3000/-. Hence, in the year 1980, valuation of the suit premises was Rs. 3,500/-. So after lapse of 22 years valuation of the suit property can be hiked or increased five times. Hence, valuation of the suit property cannot be more than Rs. 17,500/- at the time of filing of the suit. Accordingly, this issue also decided holding that plaintiffs is bound to pay ad-voleram court fees. Nothing has been alleged that ad-voleram court fee has not been paid by plaintiffs.

In the appeal preferred by the defendant / appellant before the learned lower appellate court, Issue No. (x) i.e. Is the defendant has taken the suit house on rent in January, 1980 from Laxman Das, plaintiff no. 1, Issue No. (xi) i.e. Are the alleged sale deed of defendants valid and Arjun Das had right to execute the sale deed to defendant and Issue No. (xii) i.e. Is the defendant monthly tenant of plaintiff and defendant defalcated in payment of rent and the defendant has not paid rent since November, 2001 to May 2002 and

in the month of February, 2002 defendant began to demolish some wall and roof and on vacant land began to dig foundation?

These issues have been decided by the learned lower appellate court. The learned lower appellate court has found that the defendant has taken two inconsistent views; one that he has purchased the aforesaid land after paying valuable consideration as a bonafide purchaser, on the other hand, the defendant has argued that he was in permissive possession over the suit premises.

The learned lower appellate court has considered this aspect of the matter and has given finding that both plea of the defendant are mutually inconsistent and decided the issues in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents.

The learned lower appellate court considered all the issues framed by the learned trial court and found that those findings do not required any interference by the learned lower appellate court.

The learned lower appellate court has also framed three issues, which are as follows: -

A. Whether a person who is having his name entered in the remark's column of R.S. Records of right as in possession can claim valid title on the basis of only an entry in the remark's column? B. Whether Jamabandi (mutation) created in favour of a person confers any title?

C. As per the provisions of Section 54 of T.P. Act what are the basic requirements of oral purchase and can a person on the basis of oral sale becomes owner of the land, per se.

These issues have been discussed by learned lower appellate court at para-29 of the lower appellate court judgment and has held that :-

A. Entry in remarks column regarding possession without any entry about the basis of possession, by itself, cannot confer valid title on a person in whose favour such entry has been made. B. Only mutation created in favour of a person confers no title at all. It only gives the person in whose favour mutation was created, a right to pay rent.

C. As per the provisions of Section 54 of Transfer of Properties Act, the land of a value less than Rs. 100/- can be purchased orally

but it must be coupled with delivery of possession for all intent and purposes.

Accordingly, the learned lower appellate court has also dismissed the appeal, preferred by the defendant / appellant.

So far, the judgment, which has been relied by learned counsel for the defendant / appellant / appellant are concerned, the fact of the case is different from the facts of the instant case. In the judgment relied by the by learned counsel for the defendant / appellant / appellant the Hon'ble High Court has framed one of the issues on the basis of the facts with regard to the rights made in two different survey settlement of records of rights i.e., namely cadastral survey and revisional survey under Sec 84(3) of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act. In the present case, before the trial court the plea agitated and the issues framed, on the basis of plea was with regard to the rights and title on the suit property on the basis of sale deeds and the first appellate court re consider the issues framed by the trial court and again on the plea of the defendant / appellant / appellant before the first appellate court additional issues were framed with regard to the title and requirements of the oral purchase enshrined u/s 54 of the T.P.Act and the first appellate court on the basis of such pleadings and evidences decided those issues accordingly. Since, the issue raised by the defendant / appellant / appellant before this court on the basis of the judgement relied cannot be raised at this stage, which has not been agitated before the learned courts below with regard to right confers by way of Chotanagur Tenancy Act. A issue which has not been raised before the learned court below cannot be allowed to agitate before the court of appeal where finding of fact has already been recorded against the defendant, as such, so far the judgment which has been relied by learned counsel for the appellant in the case of Dwarika Sonar (Supra) is not applicable in the present case in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Bachhaj Nahar vs. Nilima Mandal & Another reported in (2008) 17 SCC 491 (Para-11&12), as it appears from the evidence of the defendant that the plea which has been agitated with regard to Chotanagpur Tenancy Act itself is not sustainable. Para-11 & 12 of the aforesaid judgment are re-produced below:-

11. Civil Procedure Code is an elaborate codification of the principles of natural justice to be applied to civil litigation. The provisions are so elaborate that many a time, fulfillment of the procedural requirements of the Code may itself contribute to delay. But any anxiety to cut the delay or further litigation, should not be a ground to float the settled fundamental rules of civil procedure. Be that as it may. We will briefly set out the reasons for the aforesaid conclusions.

12. The object and purpose of pleadings and issues is to ensure that the litigants come to trial with all issues clearly defined and to prevent cases being expanded or grounds being shifted during trial. Its object is also to ensure that each side is fully alive to the questions that are likely to be raised or considered so that they may have an opportunity of placing the relevant evidence appropriate to the issues before the court for its consideration. This Court has repeatedly held that the pleadings are meant to give to each side intimation of the case of the other so that it may be met, to enable courts to determine what is really at issue between the parties, and to prevent any deviation from the course which litigation on particular causes must take.

So far, the judgment of Abdul Rahim (Supra), which has been relied by learned counsel for the appellant is concerned, the same is also not applicable in the present case as the facts of that case is different from the present case and the matter relates to the transfer through registered gift deed under the Muslim Law.

After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and on the basis of the material discussed by the courts below it appears that the defendant / appellant / appellant has taken plea on several grounds without leading evidence on those grounds. The plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit land and also for declaring the defendant / appellant / appellant to be tenant. The defendant / appellant / appellant has taken two inconsistent and mutually exclusive plea for possession over the suit land, one by way of a sale deed executed by vendor and the vendor who purchased the same orally and both the courts below framed the issues and on the basis of evidences have declared those sale deeds to be invalid and oral transfer of land for a suit value of more than Rs. 100 to be invalid under Section 54 of the Transfer Property Act.

So far adverse possession is concerned, the learned lower appellate court has rightly considered the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Karnataka Board of Wakf Vs. Government of India and Others reported in 2004 10 SCC 779 for claiming the title by way of adverse possession, the basic requirement is to prove that there was a hostile possession as the defendant has himself brought two grounds to prove the factum of possession and his possession was opened and undisturbed.

From the materials available on record, it appears that this Court cannot look into such arguments advanced on behalf of the defendant / appellant / appellant in the background when entire material has been considered by the learned courts below and concurrent finding with regard to the title of the plaintiff, with regard to the title of the defendant and also with regard to the relationship of the defendant as a tenant of the plaintiff.

This Court is not inclined to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below, accordingly, the second appeal, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) Sunil/-