B.Bhattacharya, J. - (1.) This second appeal is at the instance of the defendants in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction and is directed against the judgment and decree dated April 27, 1988 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 3rd court, Burdwan in Title Appeal No. 19/2 of 1986 thereby affirming those dated December 6, 1985 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, Kalna in Title Suit No. 119 of 1979 since re-numbered as Title Suit No. 74 of 1983.
(2.) The respondents No. 1 to 10 filed the aforesaid suit for declaration of title in respect of the suit property and for permanent injunction restraining the present appellants from disturbing their alleged peaceful possession in the suit property. The case made out by the plaintiffs may be summarised thus :- (a) The suit property originally belonged to one Adwaitya Mondal, who died leaving his wife, Nandarani as his sole limited owner prior to the coming into operation of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. (b) Nandarani after inheriting the suit property as a limited owner executed a deed of Arpannama on May 31, 1951 in favour of Sri Sri Shridhar Jew Thakura being defendant No. 8 in the instant suit. According to this Arpannama, Nandarani became Sebait of the deity for life and after her death, her husband's brother would become next Sebait and thereafter Sebaitship will be inherited by the heirs of the said brother of the husband. (c) On March 10, 1958 Nandarani executed a sale deed in favour of Tara Pada Banerjee, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs inasmuch as the previous Arpannama was a void document. (d) The said Tarapada Banerjee and thereafter the plaintiffs were all along in possession of the suit property as owner. (e) The defendants who are heirs of the husband's brother of Nandarani were threatening dispossession of the plaintiffs, hence the suit. The aforesaid suit was contested by the present appellants by filing written statement thereby denying the material allegations made in the plaint and the defence of the appellants are as follows :- (a) The suit was barred by limitation inasmuch as the plaintiffs wanted to avoid the Arpannama dated May 31, 1951 by filing a suit in the year 1979. (b) Nandarani having divested herself by executing Arpannama dated May 31, 1951 could not subsequently transfer the self-same property in favour of Tarapada Banerjee and as such by the alleged sale deed executed by Nandarani, Tarapada acquired no right, title or interest in the suit property. (c) The plaintiffs had no right, title or possession in the suit property.
(3.) The learned trial Judge on consideration of the materials on record held that the suit was not barred by limitation and that the Arpannama executed by Nandarani was a void document as such by virtue of the sale deed executed by Nandarani in favour of Tarapada, the plaintiffs' aforesaid predecessor acquired title to the suit property.;