issues, came to the conclusion that the ancestor of the defendants was sikmidar with respect to the land described in the plaint and that ... Siya Mahton was under-raiyat under the said Manulal Marwari as sikmidar and in the survey record of rights which was published
raiyat of the Khata
No.231. One Jhau Gope was under raiyat ( sikmidar) of Khata
No.231 and a Sikmi Khata was opened ... Raktu Mahto and Jhau Gope was in
possession of the same as Sikmidar. He was paying rent to the
owner Raktu Mahto. On his death
petitioner-appellant had already purchased the said land from the Sikmidar in the year 1961. Thus he acquired indefeasible right, title and interest ... proved the usage and custom prevalent in the area that a Sikmidar raiyat or a raiyat or under raiyat is heritable and transferable. Section
recorded in the name of Foutali Yadav and Rasik
Lal Yadav as Sikmidar bearing Sikmi Khata No. 288 and the Malki
Khatiyan stands ... rejected on the ground that the recorded Sikmidar had died and
therefore the Simki right was lost. The Case
petitioner further
submits that merely because somebody is shown as Sikmidar, it
does not confer any right of occupancy of the land ... submits that the private respondent no.4 has never been
recognized as Sikmidar nor he has ever been in possession of
the land and there
they are in possession over the same as of their right as Sikmidar and when they came to know about the payment of the compensation ... further been contended that the original appellant, who was recorded as Sikmidar i.e. under-raiyat of the land under acquisition, had died during
first party is that they are heirs of the different sikmidars who were in possession of the lands, and they have been cultivating and dividing ... Sheikh Ismail.
3. The case of the petitioner is that the sikmidars recorded under khata No. 124 died and after their death the landa came
Survey Record of Rights, defendant No. 1 was recorded as
Sikmidar under the plaintiff, who is respondent No. 1.
4. The plaintiff, therefore, brought ... declaration that the survey entry recording defendant No. 1, as
Sikmidar, was wrong, inasmuch as, defendant No. I is not Sikmidar
Bhawani
2
Mishra had settled the defendants' predecessor, Sheodhari
Sonar as Sikmidar over the suit land and he had been
recorded in the recent ... survey also as Sikmidar. It has further
been the case of the plaintiffs that Sheodhari Sonar in the
year 1936 and thereafter the plaintiff- appellants
tenant(s) within the meaning of
the Act who were recorded as „Sikmidar‟ in respect thereof. This was the first
category of the land held ... against whom such execution proceeding were launched were not the raiyat
but Sikmidar(s). They were thus, at best, under raiyats within the meaning
