1

DISTRICT-PATNA
IN THE COURT OF MUNSIF Ist, PATNA
PRESENT:- MANISH PANDEY
MUNSIF Ist, PATNA
TITLE EVICTION SUIT NO.12/2013
Girja Devi..................................................................................................Plaintiff
Versus
Kunjan Jaipuriyar .................................................................................Defendant
Lawyer for the plaintiff:- Shri Devendra Pratap Singh Ld. Advocate
Lawyer for the defendant:- Shri Naresh Mohan Pandey Ld. Advocate
SYNOPSIS OF EVIDENCE
* Oral evidences adduced by the plaintiff:
P.W.1 Girija Devi
P.W.2 Shyam Jaipuriyar
P.W.3 Ajay Kumar Sharma
P.W.4 Baijanti Kumari
*Documentary evidences adduced by the plaintiff:
Ext. 1 Original registered sale deed dated 04.04.1978 executed by Bhagwat Prasad to Smt.
Girija Devi
Ext.1/a Original registered sale deed dated 17.05.1977 executed by Bhagwat Prasad to Smt.
Girija Devi
Ext.1/b Original registered sale deed dated 11.09.1974 executed by Bhagwat Prasad to Smt.
Girija Devi
Ext.2 Signature of Girija Devi on the plaint
Ext2/a Signature of Girija Devi on the verification
Ext2/b Signature of Girija Devi on the Affidavit
* Oral evidences adduced by the Defendant:
Nil
*Documentary evidences adduced by the defendant:
Ext A A original copy of Panchnama dated 06.05.2012
Ext B to B/12 Carbon copies of accounting of rent receipt of tenant from May 2012 to May
2013.
Patna, Dated:12.12.2019
JUDGMENT
Plaintiff's case in brief is that the plaintiff was married to Siyaram Saran
Jaipuriyar in the year 1962 and out of the wedlock three sons and two daughters were born.
Further case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff's sons namely Ghanshyam Jaipuriyar,
Kunjan Jaipuriyar, Shyam Jaipuriyar are married and the daughters namely Baijanti Kumari
and Priyanti Jaipuriyar are also married and they are living in their respective matrimonial
homes along with their families. Further case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff on
11.09.74, 17.05.77 and 04.04.78 purchased land that is part of plot no. 52, appertaining to
Continued 2 Title Eviction Suit No.-12/2013
12.12.2019 In the court of Munsif-Ist, Patna

Khata no. 26, total area 2 kathha, 1 dhur, 10 dhurki through three registered sale deeds and
these three sale deeds were executed by Sri Bhagwati Prasad Rai himself and on behalf of
his two minor sons namely Premchand Rai and Dharmchandra Rai on payment of full
consideration by the plaintiff herself. Further case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff
purchased the said land detailed in schedule-2 to the plaint out of her stri-dhan fund and
later on got a house built in the year 1975 over the purchased land. Further case of the
plaintiff is that the plaintiff started living in the house and with her permission her husband
and children including the present defendant have also started living in the house since the
year 1975. Further case of the plaintiff is that the defendant with the permission of the
plaintiff started living in a room of the house and this room is the subject matter of the
present suit. Further case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is presently aged about 72 years
and the defendant's behaviour towards the plaintiff in not good and cordial and the
defendant is addicted to drugs and he consumes liquor daily and used to come home in late
night and as a matter of routine he used to abuse and assault the plaintiff and the plaintiff
tried to convince the defendant to mend his way of life but he did not mend his behaviour
and conduct towards the plaintiff and hence the necessity of suit arises. Further case of the
plaintiff is that the plaintiff several times asked the defendant to vacate the suit room but the
defendant did not pay heed to her request and demand and lastly the cause of action arose to
the plaintiff on 22.05.2013 when the defendant finally refused to vacate the suit room in
Mohalla- Chiraiyatadram nagar, P.O.-G.P.O., P.S.- Jakkanpur, District- Patna.
Defendant appeared and contested the case by filing his written statement. It
has been submitted on behalf of the defendant that the suit as framed by the plaintiff is not
maintainable either in fact or in law and the same is liable to be dismissed outrightly and it
has got no valid cause of action for the suit against the defendant and the cause of action
mentioned in the plaint is false frivolous and concocted for the purpose of the above suit. It
has further been submitted on behalf of the defendant that the suit is barred by limitation,
the suit is not properly valued and the court fee paid by the plaintiff is insufficient and the
suit cannot proceed unless the plaintiff pays the advolerum court fee on the market value of
the suit property and the suit is barred under the provision of specific relief act. It has
further been submitted on behalf of the defendant that the plaitniff is neither owner of the
property nor the defendant is residing in the suit property with the permission of the
plaintiff as licensee of the plaintiff and actually Sri Shiyavar Sharan Jaipuriyar husband of
the plaintiff acquired the land in the name of his wife plaintiff and made construction of
house thereon. It has further been submitted that Sri Siyawar Sharan Jaipuriyar husband of
the plaintiff was high School teacher in high school, Chirayatand Patna and was also doing
private tution and out of his own earning he purchased the land in the name of his wife
plaintiff through three registered sale deed in the year 1974, 1977 and 1978 and paid the
entire consideration thereof to vendor and made construction of house thereon phasewise
and also took electric connection from Patna Electric Supply company in his name in the
said house and at present the said house is G+3 having 3 flats in each floor and the plaintiff
her husband and their sons are residing in the 2 nd floor of the house according to their
Continued 3 Title Eviction Suit No.-12/2013
12.12.2019 In the court of Munsif-Ist, Patna

convenience and the ground floor, 1 st floor and third floor of the house has been let out to
different tenants by said Sri Siyawar Sharan Jaipuriyar. It has further been submitted on
behalf of the defendant that in the year 2012 some dispute arose among the plaintiff,
defendant and other family members in respect of their accommodation and rent realization
from the different tenants of the said house and as such a panchaiti was held on 06.05.2012
with consent of the plaintiff defendant and other family members and documents of
settlement of dispute by panches was prepared on the same day duly signed by the plaintiff,
defendant and other family members and persons participated in the said panchaiyati. It has
further been submitted on behalf of the defendant that inspite of the said settlement of
dispute dated 06.05.2012 the plaintiff with malafide and dishonest intention and in
collusion of her two sons namely Ghanshyam Jaipuriyar and Shyam Jaipuriyar has filed the
above suit against the defendant with false, baseless allegation and statement claiming
herself to be owner of the suit house, although the plaintiff is the name lender only and the
actual owner of the land and house. It has further been submitted on behalf of the defendant
that the plaintiff, her husband and sons are residing on the second floor of the house along
with their family members according to their convenience and the ground floor, 1st floor
and third floor are let out to different tenants. It has further been submitted on behalf of the
defendant that the husband of the plaintiff Siyawar Sharan Jaipuriyar purchased the land
through 3 registered sale deeds dated 1109.1974, 17.05.1977 and 04.04.1978 from Sri
Bhagwat Prasad Rai for valuable consideration in the name of his wife, the plaintiff and the
entire consideration of the purchased land was paid from the own earning of Siyawar
Sharan Jaipuriyar. It has further been submitted on behalf of the defendant that the plaintiff
is simple housewife fully dependent on her husband neither having any source of income of
her own nor had any stri-dhan rather the husband of the plaintiff purchased the land and in
the year 1975 made construction of Khaparposh house over the 10 dhoors of land
purchased in the year 1974 and later on made pucca construction of the house over the land
since the year 1980 phasewise and it is totally false that the husband of the plaintiff and the
children including the defendant are living in the house with permission of the plaintiff.
On the basis of pleadings of the parties following issues have been framed for
consideration:-
(i) Is the suit as framed is maintainable?
(ii) Has the plaintiff got valid cause of action for the suit?
(iii) Is the suit barred by the law of limitation and Provision of Specific Relief Act?
(iv) Is the suit is under valued and court fee paid is insufficient?
(v) Is the plaintiff is entitled to declaration of title with respect to Schedule-3 land?
(vi) Is the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of eviction against the defendant from the suit
property as detailed in Schedule-4 of the plaint?
(vii) To what other relief or reliefs, if any, plaintiff is entitled to?
FINDINGS
For substantiating his case plaintiff has produced altogether four witnesses namely
Girija Devi PW-1, Shyam Jaipuriyar PW-2, Ajay Kumar Sharma PW-3 and Baijanti Kumari
Continued 4 Title Eviction Suit No.-12/2013
12.12.2019 In the court of Munsif-Ist, Patna

PW-4.
In the form of documentary evidence plaintiff has produced Ext.1 Original
registered sale deed dated 04.04.1978 executed by Bhagwat Prasad to Smt. Girija Devi,
Ext.1/a Original registered sale deed dated 17.05.1977 executed by Bhagwat Prasad to
Smt. Girija Devi, Ext.1/b Original registered sale deed dated 11.09.1974 executed by
Bhagwat Prasad to Smt. Girija Devi, Ext.2 Signature of Girija Devi on the plaint, Ext2/a
Signature of Girija Devi on the verification, Ext2/b Signature of Girija Devi on the
Affidavit.
On behalf of defendant document has been marked during cross-examination of
plaintiff witness.
ISSUE NO.-V
In para no.3 and 4 of the plaint plaintiff pleaded that she has purchased piece of land
total area 2 katha 1 dhur 10 dhurki through three registered sale deeds dated 11.09.1974,
17.05.1977 and 04.04.1978 described in Schedule-II of the plaint. Out of her stridhan funds
and later on got a house built in the year 1975 over the purchased land. The full details of
the house are given in Schedule-III of the plaint. Defendant in para-7 of his written
statement pleaded that Shri Siyawar Sharan Jaipuriyar husband of the plaintiff was high
school teacher and was also taking private tuition and out of his earning he purchased the
land as mentioned in Schedule-II in the name of his wife (plaintiff of the case) through
three registered sale deed and paid the entire consideration to vendor and made construction
of house thereon phasewise and also took electric connection and at present the said house
is G+3 having three flats in each floor and the plaintiff, her husband and their sons are
residing in the second floor of the house according to their convenience and the ground
floor and first floor and third floor of the house has been letout to different tenant by Shri
Siyawar Sharan Jaipuriyar.
PW-1 Girija Devi supported her case by stating that she is land lady of the suit
property and defendant reside over 400 sq.ft. Area consisting of two rooms, dining hall,
kitchen and bath room as a licensee. She further stated that her marriage was solemnized
with Siya Sharan Jaipuriyar in 1962 and from the wedlock she has 3 sons and 2 daughters.
In her cross-examination she further stated that at first land was purchased in her
name in Patna in 1974 and at that time her husband was a teacher at Chiraiyatar High
School. She further stated that in 1977 one more 10 dhur land was purchased in her name
and furtehr 1 katha 1 dhur land was purchased besides the earlier one. She further stated
that all land was purchased in 3 parts and against Rs.five thousand, again against Five
thousand and again against ten-twelve thousand.
Plaintiff supported the case in para-4 and 5 of her examination-in-chief by stating
that she purchased the schedule-III property through three registered sale deeds and the
purchased property is her acquired property and stri dhan. She further stated that on the
purchased property she got constructed a house by her saving and started living. She has
proved the registered sale deed dated 11.09.1974, 17.05.1977 and 04.04.1978 which has
been marked as Ext.1 , 1/a and 1/b. In Para-10 of her examination-in-chief she stated that it
Continued 5 Title Eviction Suit No.-12/2013
12.12.2019 In the court of Munsif-Ist, Patna

is wrong to say that no settlement taken place regarding suit property on 06.05.2012 is a
forged one. In Para-19 of her cross-examination she stated that her husband was a teacher
in Mahanth Govind Das High School. In Para-39 of her cross-examination she stated that
she has identified the document of Panchayati written in the handwriting of her husband
bearing signature of herself, her husband and her son which has been marked as Ext.A.In
para-22 of her cross-examination she stated that in 1967 land total area was 7 katha
purchased in her name and in the purchase her husband also helped her. In Para-23 of her
cross-examination she stated that out of Rs.4000/- total consideration amount her husband
paid Rs.1000/- and remaining Rs.3000/- was paid by her. In para-24 of her cross-
examination she stated that she sold her ornaments. In para-25 of her cross-examination she
stated that her father gifted her 20 bhar gold in her marriage. In para-26 of her cross-
examination she stated that firstly half katha land was purchased in her name at
Chirayantand and 2 khaparposh house were built in 1974. In para-29 of her cross-
examination she stated that all the land was purchased in three parts. First and second land
was purchased for Rs.5000/- each and the third one was purchased for Rs.10-11 thousand.
In para-34 of her cross-examination she stated that since the construction of the house she
has been living in the house with her husband and children. In para-35 of her cross-
examination she stated that on each floor there are three flats first floor and third floor is let
out on rent and on second floor her husband and her sons lives as per convenience. In para-
37 of her cross-examination she stated that a dispute arose between her and her children on
the issue of residence in the house as well as collection of rent. In para-38 of her cross-
examination she denied any panchayati between her and her children. However in para-39
of her cross-examination she identified the document of panchayati by stating that it is in
the writing of her husband bearing signature of herself as well as her husband and children
and the document has been marked as Ext.A. In para-40 of her cross-examination she stated
that she used to maintain books of accounts of rent. She further stated that her son Shyam
Jaipuriyar used to write the details of rent, tenant and amount of rent paid. Carbon copy of
13 pages mentioning the details has been marked as Ext.B to B/12. In para-43 she stated
that out of the rent of the house she used to give some money to Kunjan Jaipuriyar but
when he separated from her she stopped paying him money. In para-44 of her cross-
examination she stated that Kunjan Jaipuriyar is living separately since 2013. In para-50 of
her cross-examination she denied the fact that the house in which she reside is purchased by
her husband in her name and payment has been made by him. In para-51 of her cross-
examination she denied the fact that the house has been constructed by her husband out of
income. In para-52 of her cross-examination she stated that the electricity connection in the
house is in the name of her husband and she has also taken connection in her name. In para-
56 of her cross-examination she denied that she was dependent on her husband for money.
PW-2 Shyam Jaipuriyar supported the case of the plaintiff. In Para-3 of his
examination-in-chief he stated that his mother Girija Devi purchased a total area of 2 katha
1 dhur through registered sale deeds and she is the owner. He further stated that he got
constructed the house over the land and the property is stridhan of her mother.
Continued 6 Title Eviction Suit No.-12/2013
12.12.2019 In the court of Munsif-Ist, Patna

PW-3 Ajay Kumar Singh is a formal witness and he has identified the signature of
the plaintiff on the plaint.
PW-4 Baijanti Kumari also supported the case of the plaintiff by stating that her
mother Girija Devi purchased a total area of 2 katha 1 dhur through registered sale deeds
and she is the owner. She further stated that he got constructed the house over the land and
the property is stridhan of her mother and the defendant is residing over schedule-4
property as licensee.
On the basis of oral testimony of the witnesses PW-1 to PW-4 it is evident that suit
property has been purchased via three registered sale deeds Ext.1, Ext.1/a & Ext.1/b the
recital of which shows that the property has been purchased in the name of Smt. Girija Devi
against valid consideration and after purchase of the property she came in possession of the
property as title holder and got constructed her house and her husband and sons are living
with her.
Per contra defendant has not produced any witness in support of his pleading. In
these circumstances plaintiff has been able to prove his title on schedule-III property and
this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff.
ISSUE NO.-VI
Plaintiff in Para-7 of her examination-in-chief she stated that defendant is her son to
whom she has permitted orally to live in the premises mentioned in Schedule-IV in 1985.
She further stated that defendant started misbehaving her abusing her and he is an addict of
wine and drugs. She further stated that she tried to make him understand but neither she
transformed him nor he vacated the premises.
PW-2 and PW-4 who are son and daughter of the plaintiff in para-4 and 5 of their
examination-in-chief respectively stated that defendant was residing at Schedule-4 premises
since 1985 as licensee and as now he is misbehaving with the plaintiff leading to
withdrawal of the license.
In Para-43 she stated that she used to give some money to Kunjan Jaipuriyar from
the rent of the house. But she stopped giving money when he started living separately. In
Para-44 of her cross-examination she stated that Kunjan Jaipuriyar since 2013 started living
separately since 2013.
Throughout the oral testimony of the witnesses plaintiff herself PW-1 as well as
other witnesses it has come to record that plaintiff has allowed defendant to reside with her
in the house constructed by her on the land purchased by her. PW-1 in para-7 of her
examination-in-chief stated that in 1985 she gave oral permission to the defendant to reside
over Schedule-II premises which is part of the house constructed by her. She further stated
that due to ill treatment by the defendant she withdraw her permission and asked him to
vacate the premises.
As the plaintiff is title holder of the suit property defendant is under an obligation to
prove in which capacity he is residing. Defendant has not produced any witness to
substantiate his case. Further from perusal of Ext.A and cross-examination even it is
evident that defendant (who is admittedly son of the plaintiff) is living in capacity of son in
Continued 7 Title Eviction Suit No.-12/2013
12.12.2019 In the court of Munsif-Ist, Patna

the family as per convenience, but after withdrawal of permission to live in the scheduled
premises by title holder is plaintiff, defendant is liable for eviction and hence this issue is
decided in favour of plaintiff.
Issue No.-I & II
On the basis of above discussion suit as framed is maintainable and plaintiff has got valid
cause of action.
Issue No.-III
The suit is not barred by the law of limitation and Provision of Specific Relief Act.
Issue No.-IV
Defendant has not proved otherwise hence this issue is decided in favour of plaintiff.
Issue No.-VII
On the basis of discussions made above plaintiff is entitled to relief as prayed.
Hence it is
ORDERED
The suit be and the same is decreed without cost.

DICTATED & CORRECTED

MUNSIF-Ist MUNSIF-Ist