- (1.) THE defendants are appellants in this second appeal. THEy have challenged the impugned judgment and decree passed by learned 1st Additional District Judge, Chaibasa in Title Appeal No. 18 of 2004. By the said judgment and decree, learned Lower Appellate Court has set aside the judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court and decreed the suit.
(2.) THE plaintiffs had filed title suit, being T. S. No. 13 of 2000, praying relief for declaration of right, title and interest. Plaintiffs' case was that the plaintiffs and one Sumi Kui are descendants of one common ancestor- Sado Ho, who died leaving behind Baragola Ho and Joteya Ho. THE plaintiffs are descendants of Baragola Ho, whereas Joteya Ho had only one daughter-Sumi Kui. Sumi Kui died unmarried. When Sumi Kui was alive, she was in possession of the land of her father- Joteya Ho. Her name was also recorded as raiyat in respect of the suit land along with the sons of Baragola Ho. After the death of Sumi Kui, the plaintiffs, being the nearest agnates, inherited the said property according to their custom. THE defendants, who are stranger, started making false claim over the suit land after the death of Sumi Kui, which gave rise to the cause of action for the suit. The defendants' case, on the other hand, is that Sado Ho had four sons, namely, Daso Ho, Chumbru Ho, Baragola Ho and Joteya Ho. The defendants are the descendants of Daso Ho and Chumbru Ho and are the nearest agnates along with the plaintiffs. They have got l/3rd share in the property of Joteya Ho, after the death of his daughter Sumi Kui. The name of Sumi Kui was recorded in the survey record of right showing her possession. However, there was no necessity for challenging the said entry during the lifetime of Sumi Kui as the name of Sumi Kui was jointly recorded with the plaintiffs. They have been illegally claiming their right over the property of Sumi Kui, whereas the defendants also being the nearest agnates are entitled to their share in the property of Joteya Ho after the death of his daughter Sumi Kui. Learned Trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that there are oral evidences in support of both the sides. The plaintiffs' witnesses though supported the genealogy given by the plaintiffs, yet admitted that there should be partition of land of Sumi Kui. The document-Ext. E, prepared by the villagers, also supported the claim of the defendants. On that basis, learned Trial Court inferred that the genealogical table given by the defendants are correct and the plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief claimed for.
(3.) AGGRIEVED by the judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court, the plaintiffs/respondents filed appeal in the Court of learned District Judge, Chaibasa, being Title Appeal No. 18 of 2004. The said appeal was finally heard and decided by the 1st Additional District Judge, Chaibasa. Learned Lower Appellate Court thoroughly appraised the evidences of the parties and came to the finding that in the record of right-Ext. 1, the names of the plaintiffs are recorded with Sumi Kui and their possessions are also recorded. The plaintiffs' witnesses, particularly, P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4, belong to the same KILLI (same family line) and they have supported the claim of the plaintiffs and have proved the genealogy given by the plaintiffs, whereas the defendants have brought witnesses, who, except D.W. 5, are of different villages and D.W.5 is also not of same KILLI. On appraisal of the aforesaid evidences and other materials on record, learned Lower Appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and decreed the suit. Learned Lower Appellate Court has recorded a detailed reason for arriving at the said conclusion.;