- (1.) The plaintiffs are the appellants in this appeal. By the impugned judgment and decree, learned lower appellate Court has dismissed the Title Appeal No. 11 of 2000 affirming and upholding the judgment and decree passed by learned Sub-Judge-IV, Dumka in Title Suit No. 06 of 1992. The said title suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed by learned trial Court.
(2.) The plaintiffs had filed the said suit seeking declaration that the plaintiffs are heirs of Manki Kumarain and that Paini Manjhian was not the daughter of Manki Kumarain and further that the registered deed of partition being No. 6369 of 1975 was void and inoperative.
(3.) The plaintiffs case, in brief, was that the parties are Hindus governed by Mitakshara School of Hindu Law. The plaintiffs and the defendants are not related to each other. Manki Kumarain was the recorded tenant in respect of the suit land. She was the grand mother of plaintiff Nos. 1 to 3 and great grand mother of plaintiff Nos. 4 to 8. About 55 years ago, Manki Kumarain died leaving behind her son Kaleshwar Kumar as her sole heir. Kaleshwar Kumar also died about 17 years ago leaving behind the plaintiffs. They have been in cultivating possession of the land. Late Dharmu Manjhi used to deal money lending business. The plaintiff Nos. 1 to 3 approached Jatu Manjhi for loan of Rs. 140/- and five bullocks for ploughing the lands. They agreed to transfer a partition of reclaimed Dhani lands measuring an area of 0.6 bighas out of Plot No. 829 by virtue of Bhugutbandha deed for six years. Accordingly, plaintiff Nos. 1 to 3 and defendant Nos. 1 and 5 and late Antu Manjhi had come to the Registry office. There, the defendants got prepared and executed the deed without reading over and explaining the contents thereof to the plaintiffs. The defendant No. 6 had paid Rs. 140/- and given five bullocks to the plaintiffs. The defendants thereafter came in possession of the land and started cultivation and continued in possession over 0.6 bighas till 1981. The plaintiffs resumed possession of the land in 1982 and started cultivating the same since then. In 1991, also they grew crops over the said land but the defendants forcibly tried to harvest the crops. The dispute led to a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. In that proceeding, the defendants claimed that 2.93 acres of plot No. 829 had been allotted to them on the basis of registered partition deed executed by both the parties in 1975. The plaintiffs thereafter enquired about the deed in the Sub-Registry office and obtained certified copy of the deed No. 6369 of 1975 on 3-12-1991 and then came to know that the defendants had fraudulently got the said deed executed, which also bear L.T.Is. of the plaintiff Nos. 1 to 3. In the said deed of partition, 2.93 acres of Bari land of first and second class are shown to be allotted to the share of the defendants. It is not true that Kaleshwar Kumar and Paini Manjhaian were brother and sister as described in the partition deed. Paini Manjhaian had no concern with the family of the plaintiffs. She comes from different branch and she had no right of inheritance or any concern or right, title in the suit land. There was no partition as such and the story of partition in the deed was concocted. The partition deed was obtained by fraud.;