Chhabi Dushadh And Anr. vs Bhuneshwar Pandey And Srikant Pandey on 13 August, 2003
It is also relevant to mention here that the suit of the plaintiff respondents is equally maintainable before the civil Court in view of the ratio of the case of Shiva Prasad Singh and Ors. v. Bubhan Mahto and Ors., AIR 1933 Pat 539, read with the ratio of the case of Gobinda Bouri and Ors. v. Kristo Sardar, AIR 1926 Pat 64. The plaintiffs respondent have acquired perfect right, title and interest in the suit properties and they are in possession over the same and, therefore, Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act is not at all attracted in this case. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of this case and the evidence on the record including Exts. 4 and 5 referred to above it can never be said that the finding regarding Maharaj Mahto being the son of Jattu Mahto, the recorded tenant of Khata No. 14, held by the learned appellate Court below is without any legal evidence on the record or on misreading of the evidence or it suffers from any legal infirmity which has materially prejudiced the case of the defendants appellant. It can also not be said that the finding recorded by the lower appellate Court below is perverse. Therefore, it is not open for this Court to set aside such a finding and to take a different view in the matter.