In
The Court of Sub Judge I,
Munger.
Title Suit No. 172 of 2004

1. Shree Narayan Singh, s/o late Raghubar Narayan Singh, in his capacities as individual, karta of his HUF, Managing Trustee of the Rai Bahadur Dalip Narayan Singh Trust Estate, Munger;
2. Harbeet Singh, w/o Shree Narayan Singh;
3. Kashyap Sagar Narayan Singh minor son of Shree Narayan Singh under the guardianship of his father Shree Narayan Singh

All resident of 'Uddiyana', Dalip Mahal, Mohalla Purabsarai, P. S. Kotwali, Town, Municipality, PO & Distt Munger .… Plaintiffs.
Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the District Magistrate, Munger
2. ITC Ltd, registered Office, Virginia House, 37 Chowringhee Road, Calcutta 700 016.
Through the Branch Manager of its branch situated at Raisar, P.O. Basudeopur 811 202, P. S. Kotwali, Distt Munger, Bihar
…. Defendants First Party.
3. Sri Premniti Prasad Singh, s/o late Rajniti Pd Singh, r/o Niti Niwas, Rai Bahadur Balmiki Pd Singh Rd., PO Basudeopur 811 202, PS Kotwali, Dist Munger.
4. Sri Brijniti Pd Singh, s/o Premniti Pd Singh, r/o C 214 DDA Flats, Opp Gyan Bharati School, Saket, New Delhi 110017;
5. Sri Navniti Pd Singh, s/o Premniti Pd Singh, r/o 203 Triveni Apts, East Boring Canal Rd., Patna 800 001;
6. Sri Vedniti Prasad Singh, s/o late Deoniti Pd Singh, r/o Kopy Kraft, New Dak Bungalow Rd., Patna 800 001;
7. Sri Jayniti Pd Singh, s/o Vedniti Pd Singh;
8. Sri Dhruvniti Pd Singh, s/o late Deoniti Pd Singh, r/o II-A 15 Nehru Nagar, Ghaziabad 201 001, U.P; All permanently resident at c/o Premniti Pd Singh, 'Niti Niwas', R. B. Balmiki Pd Singh Rd., Mohalla Madhopur, PO Basudeopur 811 202, P.S. Kotwali, Dist Munger …. Defendants Second Party
9. Mosomat Shakuntala Devi, w/o late Dr. Jugeshwar Prasad,
10. Smt Bharati Devi, d/o late Dr. Jugeshwar Prasad, w/o Sri Pramod Prasad,
11. Smt Meena Panjyar, d/o late Dr. Jugeshwar Prasad, w/o U. P. Panjyar,
12. Smt Shobha Choudhary, d/o late Dr. Jugeshwar Prasad, w/o B. D. Choudhary;
13. Dr. Basant Kumar,
14. Dr. Abhay Kumar Jaiswal,
15. Dr. Anil Kumar Jaiswal, all three s/o late Dr. Jugeshwar Prasad;
16. Amit Kumar Jaiswal,
17. Animesh Jaiswal, both minor sons of Dr. Abhay Kumar Jaiswal, under the guardianship of his natural father Dr. Abhay Kumar Jaiswal.
18. Arohi Abhinav Jaiswal minor son of Dr. Anil Kumar Jaiswal under the guardianship of his natural father Dr. Anil Kumar Jaiswal. All residents of Vill & PO Kalyanpur, Dist Munger at present at Mohalla Kaura Maidan, Mansari Tallay, P. S. Kotwali, P.O. & Distt Munger.
19. Mosomat Tara Jaiswal w/o late Mahendra Prasad Jaiswal,
20. Rajan Kumar Jaiswal and
21. Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, both sons of late Mahendra Prasad Jaiswal.
22. Mosomat Bina Jaiswal, w/o late Birendra Prasad Jaiswal.
23. Deepak Kumar Jaiswal, s/o late Birendra Prasad Jaiswal,
24. Mosomat Savitri Devi, w/o late Narendra Kumar Jaiswal,
25. Mukesh Jaiswal,
26. Rakesh Jaiswal,
27. Manoj Jaiswal, all three s/o late Narendra Jaiswal,
28. Smt Nutan Gupta, d/o late Narendra Jaiswal, w/o Sanjay Gupta,
29. Manisha Jaiswal, d/o late Narendra Jaiswal,
30. Surendra Kumar Jaiswal,
31. Gyanendra Kumar Jaiswal, both sons of late Raj Kishore Jaiswal.
All residents of Vill Kalyanpur, PO, PS Dist Munger at present at Mo Ghositola, P. S. Kotwali, P.O & Dist Munger.
32. Bijay Kumar Jaiswal son of late Nawal Kishore Jaiswal, r/o Mo Kaura Maidan, Mansaritallay, PS Kotwali, P.O & Distt Munger.
33. Mosomat Raj Kumari Jaiswal, w/o late Bhanu Pratap Jaiswal,
34. Smt. Kirti Jaiswal, w/o Sri Sanjeev Jaiswal & d/o late Bhanu Pratap Jaiswal,
35. Bikash Kumar Jaiswal, s/o late Bhanu Pratap Jaiswal
36. Kumari Neha Jaiswal,
37. Kumari Panku Jaiswal,
38. Kumari Dawali Jaiswal,
39. Kumari Shipu Jaiswal,
all four d/o late Bhanu Pratap Jaiswal under the guardianship of their mother Raj Kumari Jaiswal,
40. Raj Kumari Jaiswal, w/o late Bhanu Pratap Jaiswal,
41. Mosomat Manorma Jaiswal, w/o late Chandra Pratap Jaiswal @ Makhan Babu,
42. Smt. Aloka Jaiswal, w/o Major Rajeev Jaiswal, d/o late Chandra Pratap Jaiswal alias Makhan Babu,
43. Anshuman Jaiswal,
44. Badal Kumar Jaiswal,
45. Adesh Kumar Jaiswal, all three s/o late Chandra Pratap Jaiswal, @ Makhan Babu,
All r/o Kalyanpur Sadan, Nayagaon Jamalpur, P.O. and P. S. Jamalpur, Distt Munger.
46. Raman Kumar Jaiswal, s/o late Nawal Kishore Jaiswal,
47. Dhrub Jaiswal and
48. Uttam Jaiswal both sons of Raman Kumar Jaiswal

All resident of Vill & PO Kalyanpur, Dist Munger, at present r/o Kalyanpur Sadan, Naya Gaon, P.S. & P.O. Jamalpur, Dist Munger,
…. Defendants Third Party.

The Plaintiffs named above most respectfully submit as follows :-

That Shree Narayan Singh, currently the Managing Trustee of the Rai Bahadur Dalip Narayan Singh Trust Estate, is filing this suit in that capacity as well as in his personal capacity as also as the Karta of his Hindu undivided family. This is being done with the sole intent to obviate any dispute concerning the status of Pltff # 1 and his family members mentioned as plaintiffs vis a vis the suit premises.

That it needs to be stated here that Matthew Gregory Narayan Singh, elder son of Pltff # 1, now known as Matthew Singh, date of birth 13-12-1986, is totally estranged from his father and patrimony since he had last met with his father, Pltff # 1 June 1989 in Phoenix, Arizona, USA. He is not being included as a pltff in this case since he lives and studies in the US. It does not seem likely that he will have anything to do with this case once he attains majority. His current physical address is not known to Pltff # 1. The only clue to his whereabouts is from his website www.xanga.com/blackstripe. Pltff # 1 however reserves the right to include him as a pltff in this case, in future, as and when required.

That the suit premises actually form a part of the corpus of the Rai Bahadur Dalip Narayan Singh Trust Estate, Munger, a fact that has been admitted by Dfdt. # 2 vide its letter # RPS:EDS dtd Mar 2, 1966 as also receipt dtd 08-05-1967 issued to it by Rabghubar Narayan Singh, deceased, father of Pltff # 1. This will be submitted as a document in this case subsequently.

That the Plaintiffs and the Defendants Second Party are the descendants of a common ancestor Ganga Prasad Sah. The relationship of the Plaintiffs and the Defendants Second Party inter se and along with the common ancestor is given in Schedule I of this plaint and is integral to it.

That the property detailed in Schedule II of this plaint, under the zamindari of Shah Md. Zakaria and others, the property of one General Charles Murray, who was the raiyat of this zamindar and resident of Fort Area, Munger. He was the absolute owner of this raiyati jot land and was also in possession of the same. General Charles Murray was residing in a Kothi standing on these lands and he continually utilized the usufruct of the trees and other facilities of the said premises.

That a certified copy of Register D of each of Touzi #s 6631 and 1338 clearly show that Charles Murray was not the zamindar but owned raiyati land under the various zamindars mentioned in this register which includes the suit premises.

That moreover in Register II it has been stated that for the suit premises, the returns of zamindari under the BLR Act 1950 has been filed by Shah Md. Zakaria and others.

That moreover on the basis of these zamindari vesting returns, the names of the Pltff and Dfdts. Second Party have been entered in Register II and malguzari has been continually paid subsequent to the vesting of zamindari estates, by the Pltffs and the Dfdts. Second Party since 1956 and stand currently paid upto 2003-04 for a total area of 15 bighas 16 katha 16 dhur which comprises 8 annas or 50% share of a part of the suit premises.

That the Pltffs do not know as to whether the Dfdts Third Party has been paying malguzari on these premises and it is up to them to prove their case.

That General Charles Murray also owned vast tracts of lands on his own, under his Milkiat and with Bakast Interest. The land detailed in Schedule II of this plaint was his residential homestead land and also formed the Bakast land under Shah Md. Zakaria and others, the Zamindars now known as ex-intermediaries, most of it being an orchard and vacant bakast land in his personal possession.

That General Charles Murray settled the said land detailed in Schedule II of this plaint with the houses thereon, with Babu Purusottam Lal, S/o Babu Keshab Lal of Betwan Bazar, Munger on 27-07-1891 through deed # 1297 registered in Book # 1, Vol. # 17, pgs 143-147, on payment of Rs. 25,000/- as the consideration amount.

That as the name of Purusottam Lal alone is mentioned in the settlement deed, Purushottam Lal executed a registered deed of Bajdawinama or Deed of Relinquishment, in favour of Ganga Prasad Sah on 26-01-1897, bearing # 144 registered in Book # 1, Vol. # 4, pgs 114-115, with respect to the half share of the land detailed in Schedule II of this plaint. This deed will be submitted subsequently in its certified copy together with its rendering in Devanagari and Hindi separately.

That in this manner Babu Ganga Prasad Sah, the common ancestor of the Pltffs and the Dfdts Second Party, became the absolute owner of the half share of the lands detailed in Schedule II of this plaint. Thus a full quarter share of the joint property devolves on the plaintiffs with one quarter on Dfdts Second Party in accordance with the genealogical chart in Schedule I of this plaint.

That on 28-06-1897 Purusottam Lal also sold his own half share in the Schedule II property, vide Deed # 137, Book # 1, Vol. # 2, pgs 1124-130, to a person known as Gaur Bux Sahu, s/o Sukh Lal Sahu, and others, the common ancestors of Dfdts Third Party. Thus the half share of the suit premises were acquired and owned by and came into the possession of the joint family of the descendants of Gaur Bux Sah, the ancestor of Defendants Third Party. The list of names of these descendants are derived from T.S. 20 of 1993 currently pending in the court of SJII, Munger, Shakuntala Devi and others vs ITC Ltd & ors as amended to date. This list may need to be amended from time to time as the trial proceeds.

That the plaint of T.S. 20 of 1993 above is fully accepted by this Pltff. except for some modifications as mentioned in the WS submitted therein and as per details given in this plaint. A copy of this plaint and the WS filed by Pltff # 1 therein will be submitted subsequently. In the event of any discrepancies between the plaint of TS 20 of 1993, documents, the averments made in this plaint are to be considered the final stance of the Pltffs. The details of the individual shares of Dfdts Third Party are to be deduced and calculated from that plaint.

That in this way the ancestors of the Plaintiffs in the instant suit, Dfdts Second Party and Dfdts Third Party jointly became the absolute owner of the entire properties detailed in Schedule II of this plaint and came to remain, and continued in joint possession of the same as the raiyats of the Zamindars, now ex-intermediaries, Shah Md. Zakaria and others.

That the apportionment of this property is as follows: the Plaintiffs jointly own a quarter share, Dfdts Second Party jointly another quarter share, and Dfdts Third Party jointly own the remaining half share in varying apportionment to be determined from the plaint of TS 20 of 1993 as above.

That on Jan. 7, 1937, Rai Bahadur Dalip Narayan Singh, together with his only son, Babu Raghubar Narayan Singh created a trust by a deed registered in Calcutta, now Kolkata, bearing # 56, and registered in Book 1, Vol 28, Pgs 1 - 47. Within the purview of this trust known as the Rai Bahadur Dalip Narayan Singh Trust Estate, they placed all their inherited and self-acquired assets.

That by virtue of the judgment dtd 22-12-1958 of the First Addl. Sub-ordinate Judge, Bhagalpur, in TS # 54 of 1958 / 25 of 1958 Muneshwari Debi vs Raghubar Narayan Singh & ors, this property too was included in the corpus of the said trust, as is admitted by Dfdt # 2 in his letter RPS:EDS A/c B.1/990 dtd 02-03-1966, which has accepted that the said trust is in fact the actual owner of the 25% share of these suit premises.

That even though the shares of the parties were defined as above, the individual share of each partner was not delineated on the ground or on the map of the entire property. Thus these lands have continued as joint property of the Pltffs and Dfdts Second and Third Parties and is being jointly utilized by the various partners. A copy of the certified copy of this map, affixed with the signature of F. A. Parkinson, which formed an integral part of lease deed # 390 dtd 15-03-1912, as mentioned in this deed in para # 20 will also be submitted as documentary evidence together with various others both mentioned herein as also otherwise.

That a copy of the Municipal Khatian of these lands as given in the Survey of 1917, Ward C, Sheet #s 5 & 6, which clearly shows the ownership of the building standing on the suit premises in the name of Rai Bahadur Dalip Narayan Singh & ors whilst possession of these buildings cum adjacent lands is shown in the name of Peninsular Tobacco Co. Ltd. The total area of the plots in Sheet # 5 comes to 23.174 acres and Sheet # 6, 7.113 acres or a total of 30.187 acres. This is equivalent to 48 bighas 6 kathas 19 dhurs measured using a laggaa of 5 haatha size.

That the land on which stands the residential complex of ITC, Munger, has a total area of 58 bighas 14 kathas 5 dhurs and at the time of execution of the lease had standing on it pucca and khapra posh houses, kitchen, stables and so on together with a large orchard with various types of trees.

That the map mentioned in para 19 above, clearly delineates a Municipal area measuring 10 bighas 7 kathas 6 dhurs which had been acquired by the Municipality prior to the execution of the two leases a long time ago, leaving behind the property in dispute measures 48 bighas 6 kathas 19 dhurs or 30.187 acres of which only a quarter viz 12 bighas 1 katha 14 dhurs 15 dhurkis equivalent to 7.547 acres are owned by this pltff.

That the areas known as Kothi Khurd and Kothi Kala admeasure a total of 15 bighas 7 kathas 4 dhurs 10 dhurkis. Kothi Khurd in Pharsee refers to the actual residence of its owner, whereas Kothi Kala refers to the guest house.

That the land is sub-divided into two parts, the one containing a big Kothi or Kothi Khurd, with a house and garden admeasuring 9 bighas 11 kathas 8 dhurs known by the common name of Bara Basudeopur.

That there was yet another smaller Kothi or Kothi Kala, with a garden having an area of 5 bighas 15 kathas 16 dhurs and 10 dhurkis. This was known as Chhoti Basudeopur.

That both of these are the subject matter of the registered Deed of Kabuliyat, Deed of Acceptance, bearing # 392 dtd 15-03-1912.

That subsequently old constructions have been demolished and new constructions built without the written permission of the Pltffs and/or Dfdts Second & Third Parties. Hence in this manner too the covenants of the Deeds of Lease as mentioned herein have been clearly violated. It is also not known as to whether the approval of Munger Municipality for these demolitions and new constructions have ever been sought for or obtained from it even though they are bound to do so. Thus it first needs to be ascertained as to which of the old buildings remain standing and which have been constructed subsequently. Moreover, the legality of these constructions made subsequent to the execution of the Permanent Deeds of Lease, itself is questionable and for which the Pltffs and the Dfdts Second and Third Parties can never be held liable in any way.

That an area of 32 bighas 19 kathas 14 dhurs and 10 dhurkis constituted what has been known as the PARK on which stood fruit trees of several varieties. This is the subject matter of registered permanent Deed of Lease # 390 dtd 15-03-1912 in which it is clearly stated that the Lessors, the ancestors of the Pltffs and Dfdts Second Party, are raiyats and the Lessee, is the dar mokarir raiyat on the suit properties.

There is yet a second plot of 5 bighas included in registered Lease Deed # 390 dtd 15-03-1912 which this Pltff is at present unable to identify and seeks the assistance of this court and all the dfdts. in locating it as it is also not delineated in the map attached with registered Lease Deed # 390 of 15-03-1912.

That an area of 10 bighas 7 kathas 6 dhurs was parti land for general use. It was this land which has been acquired by the Municipality and considering which no claim is made in this suit. In this way the total area of the Schedule II land measured 58 bighas 14 kathas 5 dhurs in Mohalla Hata Basudeopur. Thus the remainder of the land measures 48 bighas 6 kathas 19 dhurs and it is this which constitutes the central issue of the suit and is hereinafter referred to as the suit property.

That Dfdt # 2, was formerly known as ‘The Peninsular Tobacco Company Limited’ which later was changed to The Imperial Tobacco Co. Ltd. and is now known as ITC Ltd.

That Mr. F. A. Parkinson, Director of The Peninsular Tobacco Co. Ltd., obtained the two existing houses Kothi Khurd and Kothi Kala standing on the suit property from Babus Dalip Narayan Singh & Balmiki Pd Singh, the ancestors, of the Pltffs and Dfdt Second & Third Parties by means of a registered deed of Kirayanama # 1473 dated 07-09-1907 for 5 years on a monthly rent of 56 rupees 4 annas and 32 rupees and 12 annas or Rs. 56.25 & Rs. 32.75 respectively and occupied the said premises as tenants on rent and started residing therein and paying rent to the owners as stated above totaling Rs. 89.00 per month.

That moreover the company had also agreed to pay Rs. 350.00 and Rs. 29.25 per month for the fruits, grass etc grown and produced in these premises. Accordingly the Pltff continues to be entitled to receive one quarter of this amount or Rs. 94.81 per month under this head.

That after the expiry of the said period of 5 years, the company through its Manager F. A. Parkinson, approached Babus Dalip Narayan Singh and Balmiki Prasad Singh for taking their 50% share on lease. Accordingly Babus Dalip Narayan Singh and Balmiki Pd Singh gave their share of the said property including houses well, road etc. on Mokarir or permanent lease to the said company, Dfdt # 2, executing two registered deeds bearing #s 390 & 392 both dated 15-03-1912 which had been formulated on January 29, 1912.

That through deed no. 390 as above, between F. A. Parkinson, acting on behalf of his company, on the one hand and Babus Dalip Narayan Singh and Balmiki Pd Singh on the other, negotiated a deed converting the status of the company to that of a permanent lessee, for half the share of the 32 bighas 19 kathas 14 dhurs and 5 bighas only Parti land. The terms and conditions of this deed was as follows:

That it is stated in para 10 that the Tobacco Company is to utilize the said land and is to pay one rupee eight annas per katha yearly as royalty to the said owner. In this way the said company had to pay Rs. 504 Annas 14 or Rs. 504.87 per annum to Babus Dalip Narayan and Balmiki Pd Singh for their half share in the suit land. Thus the pltffs continue to be entitled to receive Rs. 252 Annas 7 or Rs. 252.44 from Dfdt # 2 annually under this permanent Lease Deed.

That that there were bamboo groves as also trees of various varieties such as mango and so on, on the said 32 odd bighas of land. It was agreed in para 12 of this deed, that the company would use the usufruct of the said trees and other agricultural produce. Moreover if any bamboo trees or any other tree fell down, the company was to inform the owners Babus Dalip Narayan Singh and Balmiki Pd Singh who would be responsible for their removal from the campus within a week of the information given to them. It was also agreed that if the owners did not remove the same from that place within a week then the tobacco company would remove the same from its place and debit the cost of the process to the owner.

That it was further agreed in para 13 of this deed, that Municipal Taxes, Malguzari and other encumbrances on the land were to be paid by the proprietors severally and jointly.

That through the registered Kabuliyat Deed # 392 dtd 15-03-1912, between Mr. F. A. Parkinson on the one hand and Dalip Narayan Singh and Balmiki Pd Singh on the other, with respect to their half share in 15 bigha 7 kathas 4 dhurs and 10 dhurkis, containing houses etc and vacant land attached to them as mentioned in Schedule III (a) and III (b) of this plaint.

That the terms and conditions of the deed were as follows:

That the Tobacco company is to pay to the owners Rs. 350.00 and Rs. 29.25 per month of which half -- Rs. 175.00 and Rs. 14.63 is to be paid monthly for these two premises respectively to Babus Dalip Narayan Singh and Balmiki Pd Singh, as the cost of the fruits, grass and other agricultural produce obtained from the land and orchards of these premises. This pltff is therefore entitled to receive Rs. 87.50 & Rs. 7.37 per month from Dfdt # 2 under this head.

That moreover, the company had to pay Rs. 44.50 per month as house rent to the common ancestor of the Pltffs and Dfdts Second Party as the rent for the two Kothis as stated above. Hence this pltff is entitled to receive Rs. 22.25 per month under this head.

That it was also agreed that Municipal and other house taxes will be paid annually by the proprietors.

That repairs of the houses were also to be carried out by the proprietors Dalip Narayan and Balmiki Pd Singh.

That it is on the above terms and conditions that Babu Dalip Narayan and Balmiki Prasad Singh handed over the possession of their half share in the property detailed in Schedule II of this plaint to Dfdt No. 2.

That the terms and conditions as mentioned in both the registered Deeds bearing Nos. 390 and 392 dtd 15-03-1912, go to show that the suit properties were given to the Peninsular Tobacco Company on payment of rent as stated above, i.e. on a permanent lease on the terms and conditions as stated above by its owners Babus Dalip Narayan & Balmiki Pd Singh who were raiyats of the then zamindar, Shah Md. Zakaria. Thus Dfdt # 2 became a dar raiyat of these suit premises and continues to be entitled to receive the sum of Rs. 252.44 annually and Rs. 87.50 + 7.37 + 22.25 or a total of Rs. 117.13 per month as rents from Dfdt # 2 as given in detail in the preceding paras.

That Dfdt # 2 used to pay the rent of Rs. 254 - 1 anna - 6 pice or Rs. 254.10 every six months to Rai Bahadur Dalip Narayan Singh, grandfather of this pltff as is evident from letters sent by Dfdt # 2 under A/c # 21 dtd 16-03-1950 & 14-09-1950.

That Babu Raghubar Narayan Singh, late father of this pltff, continues to be registered in Register II of the govt. land records in Anchal Sadar, Munger, Mouza Harnathpur, Touzi # 6631, Jamabandi # 42, for an area of 3 bighas 0 kathas 15 dhurs and has paid malguzari for 2000-01 to 03-04 of Rs. 80.00 at an annual rate of Rs. 20.00, on the said premises on 28-06-2003 vide receipt # 175677.

That an earlier malguzari receipt issued by the zamindar, Shah Md. Zakaria for the same land, bearing # 45 is dtd 24-05-1959 of the Fasli year 1352. The vesting of zamindari estates under the BLR Act 1950 resulted in the above. This pertains to a portion of the suit premises and is being submitted in proof of the averments made throughout this plaint that the Pltff and Dfdts Second & Third Parties were raiyats of the zamindar Shah Md. Zakaria, and that Dfdt # 2 has since 1912 merely been their tenant.

That similarly Babu Raghubar Narayan Singh is registered in Register II, Mouza Bahadurpur Ganesh, Touzi # 1338, Jamabandi # 2/545 area 3 bighas and malguzari has been paid for 2000-01 to 03-04 at the annual rate of Rs. 9.00, or Rs. 36.00 on 28-06-2003 vide receipt # 175678. Malguzari for the years 2000-01 till 04-05 has been paid on 9-10-2004 vide receipt # 377866.

That similarly Babu Raghubar Narayan Singh is registered in Register II, Mouza Basudeopur, Touzi # 1338, Jamabandi # 1/485 area 01 bighas 17 kathas 13 dhurs and malguzari has been paid for 2000-01 to 03-04 at the annual rate of Rs. 9.00, or Rs. 36.00 on 28-06-2003 vide receipt # 175679. Malguzari for the years 2000-01 till 04-05 has been paid on 9-10-2004 vide receipt # 377865.

That similarly Babu Raghubar Narayan Singh is registered in Register II, Mouza Harnathpur, Touzi # 6631, Jamabandi # 42 area 3 bighas 15 dhurs and malguzari has been paid for 2000-01 to 03-04 at the annual rate of Rs. 9.00, or Rs. 36.00 on 28-06-2003 vide receipt # 175677. Malguzari for the years 2000-01 till 04-05 has been paid on 9-10-2004 vide receipt # 377869.

That duplication of malguzari payments have been made for these three Jamabandis as mentioned in para 51 - 53 which needs to be resolved by Dfdt # 1, DM, Munger under appropriate directions issued by this learned court.

That moreover Deoniti Pd Singh and Premniti Pd Singh, constituting Dfdts Second Party also have their names registered in Register II as below:

Touzi # 1338, Jamabandi # 2/486 Area 1 bigha 17 katha 13 dhur

Touzi # 1338, Jamabandi # 3/546 Area 3 bigha only

Touzi # 6631, Jamabandi # 42 Area 3 bigha 0 katha 15 dhur.

That malguzari for the above has also been paid by them on 09-10-2004 vide receipt #s 377868, 377867, 377870 respectively which will be submitted as documents in this case.

That moreover Deoniti Pd Singh and Premniti Pd Singh, constituting Dfdts Second Party also have their names registered in Register II as below:

Touzi # 1338, Jamabandi # 303/486 Area 1 bigha 17 katha 13 dhur

Touzi # 1338, Jamabandi # 392/546 Area 3 bigha only

Touzi # 6631, Jamabandi # 87 Area 3 bigha 0 katha 15 dhur.

That malguzari for the above has also been paid by them on 22-08-04 vide receipt #s 2808489, 2808490, 2808488 respectively which will be submitted as documents in this case.

1That there is apparently a duplication of entries in the Jamabandis mentioned in paras 55-57 above which needs to be clarified by Dfdt # 1 and it is prayed that this learned court take cognisance of this and have the matter rectified appropriately.

That the three Mauzas Harnathpur, Bahadurpur Ganesh & Basudeopur, are basically three different names for the same mouza and mohalla as mentioned in Schedule II of this plaint viz. Mauza Ganesh Harnathpur, Mohalla Basudeopur falling under Touzi #s 1338 and 6631 parts of which constitute the land known as ITC Park and which is clearly delineated by a pukka compound wall along the entire perimeter. Hence malguzari is already being paid by the Pltffs and Dfdts Second Party for 07 bighas 18 kathas 08 dhurs each by virtue of the nine receipts as mentioned in the immediately preceding paras.

That the State has stopped issuing certified copies of Register II hence this learned court may require Dfdt # 1 to produce the record of rights for Touzi # 6631 and 1338 as above to substantiate the above averments.

That in view of the above, the issue of rent fixation in the name of ITC Ltd., who is merely a dar mokarir raiyat, Dfdt # 2 in this suit, does not arise at all and any attempt by it to have this done is clearly male fide and vexatious. Moreover any action taken by Dfdt # 1 and his subordinate officers in this direction, clearly shows a lack of knowledge of the realities concerning the suit premises together with their blatant unwillingness to ferret out the truth concerning the suit premises and the subsequent non application of mind by them in such matters.

That on the contrary, it is the responsibility of Dfdt # 1 to fix the malguzari on the remainder of the land owned by this Pltff which is 12 bighas 1 katha 14 dhurs 15 dhurkis less 07 bighas 18 kathas 08 dhurs as above or 04 bighas 03 kathas 06 dhurs 15 dhurkis.

That one of the causes for this suit devolves directly upon Dfdt # 1 as the Cadestral Survey for the lands falling under the Municipality. Munger, have not been done for 100 years or so, hence the Record of Rights does not clearly mention the physical location of each jamabandi.

That after vesting of Zamindari Estates under the BLR Act 1950, Dfdt # 2 filed a vexatious and malignant petition before the D.C.L.R. Munger for fixation of fair rent of the said properties in its name, claiming to be the raiyat of the State of Bihar, vide Miscellaneous Case No. 5 of 1958-59.

That the learned D.C.L.R., after due consideration, by his order dated 17-04-1963 stated that the suit property was never the Kutchehary of the ex-intermediaries used for the collection of rent and the same never vested in the State of Bihar under the Bihar Land Reforms Act 1950. The D.C.L.R., Munger upheld the suit property to be under the ownership of Raghubar Narayan Singh and the descendants of R. B. Balmiki Pd Singh, whose names stand entered in Register II as mentioned above, and thus the petition of Dfdt # 2 was rejected. This order will be submitted as a necessary document in this case.

That Dfdt # 2 never ever challenged the said order of the D.C.L.R., Munger in Misc Case # 5 of 58-59 which thus became final and binding on all parties.

That Dfdt # 2 subsequently continued to pay the rents due erratically the last time that they paid rent to Raghubar Narayan Singh, father of Pltff # 1. Dfdt # 2 paid rent of the premises to Pltff # 1 until 31st March 1984 and thereafter stopped payment of rent for the quarter share of the premises to Raghubar Narayan Singh, above. Thus Dfdt # 2 is a defaulter in the eyes of the law.

That apart from the above Dfdt # 2, I.T.C. Ltd., falsely claims title and ownership over the leased property as a raiyat directly under the state of Bihar as is clear from the following facts and has thus broken the covenants of the deeds of lease mentioned above:

That Dfdt # 2 filed a petition on 23-02-1976 before the Anchal Adhikari, Sadar, Munger for fixing fair rent for the said property vide Rent Fixation Case # 1 of 76-77. In this it concealed the fact of Misc Case 5 of 1958-59 and the order dtd 17-04-1963 passed in it. The learned Anchal Adhikari recommended the matter to the D.C.L.R., Sadar, Munger for the fixing the fair rent. This Pltff was also not made a necessary party in this matter. The D.C.L.R., apparently totally unaware of the earlier proceedings, by his order dated 08-12-76 ordered to fix rent for the said property in the name of I.T.C. Ltd.

That the said order of the D.C.L.R. dtd 08-12-1976, as stated above, was against his own order dated 17-04-1963, in which the learned D.C.L.R. had passed the order that Babu Raghubar Narayan Singh is the real owner and raiyat of the State of Bihar and thus malguzari is to be realized from him. It needs to be emphasised that any further order by the D.C.L.R., Munger, subsequent to the original order dtd 17-4-1963 as above is void ab initio.

That the plaintiff’s mother Prem Lata Devi, now deceased, using her General Power of Attorney given to her by her late husband, Raghubar Narayan Singh, father of Pltff # 1, had filed Revenue Miscellaneous Case No. 105/87-88 before the District Magistrate, Munger against ITC Ltd., Munger.

That the matter had also been referred to the hon’ble High Court Patna by ITC Ltd., Munger, Dfdt # 2 herein in CWJC # 9 of 1993. In its petition, ITC Ltd., Dfdt # 2, in spite of its sworn affidavit, actively misrepresented the entire matter before the hon’ble High Court. This Pltff was not made a necessary party. Fortunately J. Radha Mohan Prasad & J. S. B. Sinha passed an order dtd 22-06-1993 in which the petitioner ITC Ltd. was directed to present its case before the District Magistrate, Munger.

That after hearing the entire matter the learned District Magistrate by his order dated 13-02-1993 ordered that the matter is to be decided in a title suit in Civil Court having competent jurisdiction to determine the ownership of the suit premises, as to whether the real owner of the said property whether is the State of Bihar or Raghubar Narayan Singh.

That irrespective of the order of the D.M., Munger dated 13-02-93 in Misc. Case No. 105/87-88 and irrespective of the order of the D.C.L.R. dated 17-4-1963 in Misc. Case No. 5 of 58-59, as also the order of the hon’ble High Court, Patna in CWJC # 9 of 1993, the Pltff has come to know that Dfdt # 2 has yet again filed a petition before the D.C.L.R. Munger for fixation of fair rent claiming itself to be the real owner of the suit property which is still pending. Details of this are not known to this Pltff and it is the responsibility of the Dfdts First Party to produce the relevant details before this learned court for adjudication. Clearly Dfdt # 2 continues in its vexatious, malicious and malignant attempts to illegally grab the suit premises under various false pretexts, necessitating the instant suit for which this court may be pleased to pass exemplary punitive orders against it.

That it is clear from the above that the status of Dfdt # 2 has in no way been enhanced from that of being a lessee of the suit premises to that of an owner.

That since Dfdt # 2 by the above acts has maliciously, malignantly and vexatiously set up a title to the said property to itself, thus having broken the covenants of the lease, the lessor now becomes entitled to re-enter into the leased property.

That under the circumstances the Pltffs do not wish to continue with the two leases, hereby terminates them both and require that Dfdt # 2 vacate the suit premises forthwith which are being used for residential purposes in the nature of a well laid out colony with buildings, outhouses, roads, parks, orchards and so on known as the ITC Park.

That the last instance when Dfdt # 2 had paid any rent was 01-04-1984.

That the rents due as of April 1984 until Sep 2004 are calculated as follows:

Rent calculated @ Rs. 252.44 annually or Rs. 5,175.02 for twenty and a half years;

Rent calculated @ Rs. 117.13 per month or Rs. 28,812.52 for twenty and a half years;

Total rents due Rs. 33,987.54 for the entire period.

Total interest due Rs. 41,804.67 @ 12% p.a.

That thus a total sum of Rs. 75,992.21 is due as the rent on these properties together with interest until Sep 30, 2004.

That moreover a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs is due as the usufruct or cost of agricultural produce of the orchard which has not been paid by Dfdt # 2 for three decades now even though it has been making full use of the agricultural produce.

That thus the total dues amounts to Rs. 10,41,804.67, Rupees ten lakhs forty one thousand deight hundred and four and paise sixty seven only.

That under the law then extant, a permanent lease of tenancy had a life span of 99 years which is due to expire on 14-03-2011 when Dfdt # 2 will be required by law to evacuate the suit premises with the possession of the quarter share of the suit premises automatically reversing to these Pltffs, a quarter to Dfdts Second Party and the remaining half to Dfdts. Third Party.

That it is clearly with the intent to pre-empt such an eventuality that Dfdt # 2 has been engaged in all its crooked machinations to dispossess these Pltffs and the Dfdts Second & Third Parties of the suit premises by falsely making it appear that Dfdt # 2 is the actual owner of the suit property when all the documentary evidence points to the contrary. It is extremely telling on the modus operandi of such large companies that they should unthecially seek to dispossess the owners of the lands they have been utilising to the fullest extenet under false pretexts.

That it is submitted that a decree for partition of their quarter share in the property be passed delineating the exact areas on land and the survey map of the suit premises, which belong to this Pltff and Dfdts Second & Third Parties severally.

That it is submitted that Dfdt # 2 be ordered to pay in full the rents due to the Pltff of Rs. 33,987.54 as given above, together with interest at 12% p.a. Of Rs. 41,804.67 until Sep 30, 04 and further pendelite.

That it is submitted that Dfdt # 2 be also ordered to pay the usufruct or cost of agricultural produce of Rs. 10 lakhs as explained above.

That it is submitted that since Dfdt # 2 has breached the covenants of the registered deeds of lease # 390 & 392 dtd 15-03-1912 as mentioned above, it is liable to be evicted from the quarter share of the property which falls under the share of this pltff.

That the Pltffs do not know in detail the present layout of the suit premises and the structures standing thereon and it is necessary in the interests of justice that Dfdt # 2 submits full details of the current layout of and the structures standing on the suit premises, giving details of the year of construction of individual buildings, the date of sanction of such constructions and so on, together with a video cassette showing the entire campus in proper detail.

That the Pltff moreover petitions this court for the issue of an ad interim injunction against Dfdt # 2 that it in no way modifies the suit premises as of the date of the filing of this suit, nor does it cut down trees, bamboo and so on.

That the pltff moreover petitions this court for the issue of an ad interim injunction against Dfdt # 1 that he stays any further process of fixing malguzari or realising malguzari from Dfdt # 2 on the suit premises, until the disposal of this suit. This would be in accordance with the order of the D. M., Munger, in Revenue Misc. Case # 105 of 1987-88 dtd 13-12-1993 as mentioned above.

That the Pltffs had sent a Legal Notice dtd 20-12-1996 under registration # 4623, to the District Magistrate, Munger through Sri Pawan Kr. Sharma, Adv to which the DM, Munger has not cared to respond.

That similarly the Pltffs had given a pleader’s notice dated 03-01-1997 under registration # 5869 through Sri Pawan Kumar Sharma, Advocate, to the Dfdts First Party u/s 106 T. P. Act which was served on the defendant. By this notice the plaintiff terminated the tenancy of Dfdt # 2 from the suit property on and from the ends of 31st December 1996 an directed the defendant to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff on the 1st January 1997 failing which action would be taken against it for vacating the suit property through the process of the court. However, Dfdt # 2 has not complied with this notice.

That the Pltff served yet another notice under registration # 5868 dtd 03-01-1997 u/s 114A of the T. P. Act to Dfdt # 2.

That in its response Dfdt # 2, ITC Ltd., dtd 17-02-1997 bearing ref # Legal / 120 continues to claim title and ownership of the suit premises in spite of various anomalies, contradictions and lacunae in its contents.

That on 19-07-03 the Pltff had sent a legal notice through Sri Birendra Kumar Adv to Dfdt # 2 u/s 106 T. P. Act, to which Dfdt # 2 had sent an extremely confused reply dtd 29-08-03 ref # CM/33. The Pltff had then sent a stern reply dtd Sep 6, 03 to Dfdt # 2 stating it was clearly attempting to obfuscate matters.

That a Notice u/s 80 CPC was served on the District Magistrate, Munger, on Aug 20, 2004 by Sri Birendra Kumar, Adv, on behalf of this Pltff under Sky Lark Courier receipt # 5855 which was received by him on Aug 20, 2004.

That a Notice u/s 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, was served on ITC Ltd., Dfdt # 2, on Aug 20, 2004 by Sri Birendra Kumar, Adv, on behalf of this Pltff. under Sky Lark Courier receipt # 5854 which was received by him Aug 21, 04.

That a Notice u/s 114A of the Transfer of Property Act, was served on ITC Ltd., Dfdt # 2, on Aug 20, 2004 by Sri Birendra Kumar, Adv, on behalf of this Pltff under Sky Lark Courier receipt # 5857 which was received by him on Aug 21, 04.

That Dfdt # 2 has sent a peculiar reply dtd 19-10-2004 to each of these two legal notices which are both devoid of any legal merit, seeking more time for a full reply based on the spurious pretext of holidays and holy days. It needs to be pointed out here that Dfdt # 2 on various pretexts has succeeded in delaying the trial of TS 20/93 by Sub Judge II. It is only too evident that Dfdt # 2 will attempt similar delaying tactics in this case as well with the sole intent of delaying justice. This needs to be taken into consideration by this learned court so as to ensure a speedy trial and disposal of this suit.

That under the circumstances after the plaintiff has no option other than to seek remedy from the Civil Court and hence the necessity of this suit.

That the cause of action arose on 29-01-1912 when the lease deeds came in existence on 01-04-1984 and onwards when the Dfdt # 2 has ceased to pay the rent as stipulated, on several dates when Dfdt # 2 claimed titled over the suit property, on 20-12-1996 when notice u/s 80 C.P.C. was given to the State of Bihar & 03-01-1997, when notices under u/s 106 and 114A of T. P. Act were served to Dfdt # 2 as mentioned above, on 17-02-1997 when ITC Ltd., Dfdt # 2 sent its reply, on 19-07-03 when the Pltff had sent a legal notice through Sri Birendra Kumar Adv to Dfdt # 2 u/s 106 T. P. Act, on 29-08-03 when Dfdt # 2 had sent an extremely confused reply under ref # CM/33, on 06-09-03 when the Pltff had then sent a stern reply to Dfdt # 2 stating it was clearly attempting to obfuscate matters.

That all the parties reside within the jurisdiction of this court as also does the suit premises, hence the suit is filed in this court.

That the suit property to the extent of the share of the plaintiff is tentatively valued at Rs. 2,34,00,000/- (Rupees two crores thirty four lakhs only) at the current govt rate of Rs. 31,000/- per decimal of residential land for this area and Rs. 10,000/- is valued for the purpose of injunction. Thus the suit premises are valued at a total of Rs. 9,36,00,100/- plus rental dues of Rs. 33,987.54 as of the date of filing this suit, together with interest thereon of Rs. 41,804.67 as also the usufruct of the orchard of Rs. 10 lakhs as given above. This comes to a total of Rs. 9,46,85,992.21 for the purpose of jurisdiction and court fee on which ad valorem court fee of Rs. 50,000.00 fifty thousand only is being paid. Moreover for the purpose of injunction an additional court fee of Rs. 100.00 is also being paid.

That it cannot be emphasised enough that the govt valuation of the suit premises will be enhanced from time to time. Hence by the time the suit is finally disposed of, the official value will have been enhanced many times.

That similarly the market value of the suit premises are invariably multiples higher than the govt rates. The market value of the suit premises will have been enhanced enormously by the time the suit and subsequent appeals are disposed of.

That moreover, it is common international business practice particularly where the stakes are high, given that Dfdt # 2 is controlled by British American Tobacco with its headquarters in the UK, that Dfdt # 2 will seek to silence through threat, intimidation, coercion, elimination and so on, the pltffs and various dfdts herein in direct contravention of the provisions of Sec 38 of The Specific Relief Act 1961, under the heading of ‘nuisance’. The pltffs feel that it is important to bring this to the attention of this learned court so that remedial steps in the nature of an injunction be issued against Dfdt # 2, ITC Ltd., not to engage in any such illegal acts and that in the event of any mishap, apparent accident and so on, it will be the company which will be held responsible for such an event should any occur.

That the plaintiff prays for the following relief:

That the court be pleased to pass an ad interim order of injunction restraining Dfdt # 2 from modifying the premises in any way hence.

That the court be pleased to order that Dfdt # 2 submits full details of the current layout of and the structures standing on the suit premises together with a video cassette showing the entire campus.

That after adjudication the court be pleased to declare the title of the plaintiff over a quarter share of the suit premises as given in Schedule II of this plaint.

That the court be pleased to effect a partition of the suit premises in accordance with the various shares of the Pltff and Dfdt #s 2 & 3 as held severally.

That the court be pleased to order that Dfdt # 1 carries out a Cadestral Survey of the lands which fall under the Municipality, Munger.

That the court be pleased to order that Dfdt # 1 fixes the malguzari payable by this Pltff on the remaining 04 bighas 03 kathas 06 dhurs 15 dhurkis of land as delineated in para 50 above so as to enable him to pay the correct amount to the State of Bihar.

That the Court be pleased to declare that the status of Dfdt # 2 vis a vis the suit property continues to be that of a lessee and does not stand modified to that of an owner after the vesting of the Zamindari estates under the B.L.R. Act 1950 in the State of Bihar.

That the court be pleased to order that Dfdt # 2 pays in full the arrears of rent of Rs. 33,987.54 as of the date of filing this suit, together with interest thereon of Rs. 41,804.67 pendelite as given in detail above.

That the court be pleased to order that Dfdt # 2 pays in full the usufruct of the orchard of Rs. 10 lakhs as given above.

That the court be pleased to pass a decree of ejectment of Dfdt # 2 from the quarter share of the suit properties which form the share of this Pltff and be pleased to pass a decree of recovery of possession of this quarter share in favour of the plaintiff in the said property and the possession over the same be handed over to the plaintiff through the Court bailiff.

That a decree for cost and for any other relief as your honour deem fit and proper be passed in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants.

Schedule I on following page due to chart

Schedule – I
Genealogical Table of the Plaintiff.
Ganga Pd. Sah
Jamuna Pd. Sah Lareti Pd. Sah
Rai Bahadur Dalip Narayan Singh Rai Bahadur Balmiki Pd.Singh
Raghubar Narayan Singh Rajniti Pd.Singh Deoniti Pd. Singh
Sr. Wife Muneshwari Devi Premniti Pd Singh
Jr. Wife Premlata Devi Brijniti Pd Singh Navniti Pd Singh
Shree Narayan Singh (Plaintiff # 1) Vedniti Pd. Singh Dhrubniti Pd. Singh Smt Harbeet Singh (wife Pltff # 2) Jayniti Pd Singh
Matthew Singh (estranged son) (Defendants Second Party)
Kashyap Sagar Narayan Singh (minor Pltff # 3)
Schedule – II
Details of land purchased from General Charles Murray:
Araji 58 bighas 14 kathas 5 dhurs all lying in Touzi #s 1338 & 6631, Mauzas Ganesh Harnathpur, Mohalla Basudeopur, Town Munger. This katha is panchahamdasti or measured using 5 haatha ka lagga and is therefore equivalent to 30.287 acres as calculated in the Municipal Khatians for Sheet #s 5 & 6, Ward C, Survey 1917. An area of 10 bighas 7 kathas 6 dhurs is designated as Municipal land in the map, hence the claim is for 48 bighas 6 katha 19 dhurs which forms the suit property.
Municipal records of these lands as given in the Survey of 1917, Ward C, Sheet #s 5 & 6 show clearly the ownership of the Pltff, & Dfdts Second & Third Parties as follows:
Sheet # 5 : Plot #s having a total area of acres or bighas kathas dhurs dhurkis using a measurement of 5 haath lagga.
Sheet # 6 : Plot #s having a total area of acres or bighas kathas dhurs dhurkis using a measurement of 5 haath lagga.
Old Survey Plot #s 1943 & 1944. The suit premises thus measure 48 bighas 6 kathas 19 dhurs is bounded as follows:
North: Municipal Land; South: Municipal Road;
East: Municipal Road; West: Municipal Road.
Survey Plot #s Municipal Survey Plot #s 1943, 931, 936, 969, 165 & 1462 comprising 32 bigha 19 kathas 4.5 dhurs.
1944, 975, 976 for an area of 15 bighas 7 kathas 14.5 dhurs
The entire land is broken up as follows as given in the map: 32 bighas 19 kathas 14 dhurs 10 dhurkis – Basudeopur Park together with trees, orchards and bamboo groves.
9 bighas 11 kathas 8 dhurs – Bara Kothi or Kothi Khurd with standing pucca house thereon.
5 bighas 15 kathas 16 dhurs – Chhota Kothi or Kothi Kala with outhouses and orchard.
10 bighas 7 kathas 6 dhurs – Muncipal Land.
Merely one quarter of the total area belongs to this Pltff. And another to Dfdts. Second Party jointly. This amounts to 12 bighas 1 katha 14 dhurs 15 dhurkis. equivalent to 7.547 acres as belonging to each of them.

Verification.
I, Shree Narayan Singh, Plaintiff # 1, do hereby solemnly swear and affirm that the contents of this plaint are true to the best of my knowledge and belief and that I have concealed nothing therefrom.
Verified by me this 20th day of Nov, 2004 in the civil court compound, Munger.

Shree Narayan Singh, Plaintiff # 1
Verification.
I, Mrs. Harbeet Singh, Plaintiff # 2, do hereby solemnly swear and affirm that the contents of this plaint are true to the best of my knowledge and belief and that I have concealed nothing therefrom.
Verified by me this 20th day of Nov, 2004 in the civil court compound, Munger.

Mrs. Harbeet Singh, Plaintiff # 2

In the Court of Sub Judge I,
Munger.
TS # 172 of 2004
Shree Narayan Singh & ors .... Pltffs
Vs
State of Bihar & ors .... Dfdts

Affidavit
I, Dhaneshwar Mandal, aged about 53 yrs., s/o Sri Roshan Mandal, r/o Mo. Sherpur, PS Kotwali, Dist Munger, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as follows:
That I am karpardaz of the pltff in this case;
That the statements made in the plaint dtd 20-11-2004 and its verification, are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, belief and information;
That the above said statements are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and that I have concealed nothing and that no part of the same is wrong or false.
Deponent.
I identify the deponent who has signed in my presence and before the Oath Commissioner, Civil Court, Munger.
Advocate.