2003 (8) TMI 556 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the plaintiff's cause of action.
2. Maintainability of the suits in their present form.
3. Subsisting title of the plaintiff in T.S. No. 79 of 1973.
4. Subsisting title of the plaintiff in T.S. No. 80 of 1973.
5. Bar of limitation and adverse possession.
6. Reliefs entitled to the plaintiffs.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Plaintiff's Cause of Action:
The trial court framed this issue to determine whether the plaintiffs had a valid cause of action for filing the suits. The appellate court found that the plaintiffs had a valid cause of action based on their claims of ownership and possession of the suit lands derived through a series of transactions starting from Jattu Mahto, the recorded tenant.

2. Maintainability of the Suits in Their Present Form:
The trial court considered whether the suits were maintainable as filed. The appellate court upheld the maintainability, noting that the plaintiffs sought a declaration of their title and possession over the suit lands, which is a legitimate form of legal relief.

3. Subsisting Title of the Plaintiff in T.S. No. 79 of 1973:
The trial court initially found that Jattu Mahto died issueless and that the plaintiffs or their vendors did not acquire any right, title, or interest in the suit land. However, the appellate court reversed this finding, determining that Maharaj Mahto was indeed the son of Jattu Mahto, thereby inheriting the title. The appellate court relied on documentary evidence such as Exts. 4 and 5, which were validated by the High Court's directive to consider these exhibits.

4. Subsisting Title of the Plaintiff in T.S. No. 80 of 1973:
Similar to T.S. No. 79 of 1973, the trial court had dismissed the plaintiff's claim, but the appellate court reversed this decision. The appellate court's reappraisal of evidence confirmed that Maharaj Mahto, as the son of Jattu Mahto, had a subsisting title to the suit lands, which was subsequently transferred to the plaintiffs through valid sale deeds.

5. Bar of Limitation and Adverse Possession:
The trial court held that the defendants had perfected their right, title, and interest by adverse possession. However, the appellate court found no legal evidence to support the defendants' claim of adverse possession. The appellate court noted that the plaintiffs and their predecessors were in continuous possession of the suit lands, thereby negating the defendants' claim of adverse possession.

6. Reliefs Entitled to the Plaintiffs:
The appellate court decreed the suits in favor of the plaintiffs, granting them the declaration of title and possession over the suit lands. The appellate court found that the plaintiffs had established their right, title, and interest through a chain of valid transactions starting from the original recorded tenant, Jattu Mahto.

Conclusion:
The appellate court's judgment was based on a thorough reappraisal of the evidence, including the validation of Exts. 4 and 5, which established the lineage and title of Maharaj Mahto as the son of Jattu Mahto. The appellate court found no merit in the defendants' claims of adverse possession and upheld the plaintiffs' title and possession over the suit lands. The High Court affirmed the appellate court's judgment, dismissing the appeals without costs.