ASIM KUMAR RAY, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated January 20, 1998 passed in Title Appeal No. 56 of 1994 affirming the judgment and decree dated July 28, 1993 passed in Title Suit No. 44 of 1991.
(2.) PLAINTIFFS case in brief was that the suit land was vested to the suit. Plaintiffs were cultivating the said land. They were in possession. The suit lands were settled to them by the state granting patta vide Nos. 8, 9 and 10, Case No. 58/RS/G -II 86 -87 dated 2 -2 -1987. They paid rent to the State. Plaintiff No. 1 filed number of cases against defendant No. 1 and others as they were disturbing the plaintiffs' possession in the suit property. The defendant threatened the plaintiffs to take forcible possession of the suit property. So the suit was filed. Defendants contested the suit by filing written statement. It was their case that one Pandab Lal Das was the owner of the suit land who settled the same with Sohan Lal Pal by virtue of rent receipt. The name of Sohan Lal Pal was recorded in respect of the suit land. Later the same was vested to the State as non -retain land of Pandab Lal Das. Sohan Lal Pal sold the suit land to the defendants by Kobala dated 20 -7 -1977. Some Santhals forcibly entered into the suit land but they left it after executing 'Nadabi nama.' The plaintiffs were creating trouble in the suit land on the basis of a fraudulent patta which they have received on October 9, 1990. Some plaintiffs were minor at the time of granting patta in respect of the suit land. The defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.
(3.) LEARNED Trial Court dismissed the suit and the same was affirmed by the first Appellate Court. In the aforesaid background this is the second appeal before this Court.;