Narendra Nath Tiwari, J. - (1.) THIS is Plaintiffs' second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 21st May, 2005 passed in Title Appeal No. 1 of 2004. By the impugned judgment the appeal filed by the Defendants has been allowed and the judgment and decree of the Trial Court passed in favour of the Plaintiffs has been set aside.
(2.) THE Plaintiffs filed Title Suit No. 1 of 2001 in the court of Munsif at Chaibasa, praying therein for a decree of declaration of their right title and interest over the suit property and for declaring that the record of right published in the year 1964 in respect of the suit land is wrong. The Plaintiffs further prayed for a decree of confirmation of possession over the suit land and permanent injunction, restraining the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 from going over the suit land and from interfering with the Plaintiffs' possession. Plaintiffs' case was that their father -Birendra Tamsoy was an employee of TISCO. He used to live at Jamshedpur. Sukhlal Dubraj and Sikur Tubid -fathers of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were close friends of Birendra Tamsoy. In the year 1946. Birendra Tamsoy purchased a piece of land at Chaibasa, measuring 66 decimals, but in the name of Sukhlal Dubraj and Sikur Tubid not in his name. Nevertheless, Birendra Tamsoy was in actual possession of the land. He constructed a house over the same. Sukhlal Dubraj and Sikur Tubid avoided handing over the original deed of sale to Birendra Tamsoy on one pretext or the other, but ultimately they delivered the document to Birendra Tamsoy. The Plaintiffs -Gini Kui and Nirmala Kui are the daughters of Birendra Tamsoy. He had no male issue. Birendra Tamsoy married his daughters with Sanga Biruli and Kolai Birua and got his sons -in -law in his house as 'GHAR DAMAD. He gifted away the property and authority to his daughters, who are the Plaintiffs. They have been paying current rent as well as holding tax to the concerned authority. Birendra Tamsoy died in the year 1972. Fathers of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 also died. The Plaintiffs' mother died in the year 1991. In the meanwhile, Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, taking advantage of the wrong entries of the names of their fathers in the record of rights, published in the year 1964, began making claim over the suit property and giving threats to dispossess the Plaintiffs from the suit land, The Plaintiffs claimed that they had also perfected their right and title over the suit land by their continuous occupation/possession by constructing Sulabh Sauchalaya and by paying municipal tax. They had also buried their parents in a portion of the suit land.
(3.) THE Defendants contested the claim of the Plaintiffs. Defendants' case was that in the year 1946, fathers of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 jointly purchased the suit property by virtue of registered sale deed dated 22nd March, 1946 for a valuable consideration. They came in possession of the suit land and got their names mutated in the revenue records without any objection from the Plaintiffs' father. They constructed their house over the suit land, Subsequently, the Plaintiffs' father, who was the friend, was allowed to reside in the house as a licensee. The remaining portion of the house was retained by the Defendants for their residential use. The Defendants denied the ' Plaintiffs' claim of the alleged gift in respect of the suit property. Further case of the Defendants was that in 'HO' community, the married daughters are not entitled to inherit the properties of their father, They, being the tribal, cannot transfer the property without prior permission of the Deputy Commissioner under the provisions of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act. The Plaintiffs have' no right title over the suit land. When they stacked stone and other materials for the purpose of further construction in the suit land, the Plaintiffs raised objection for the first time. The matter was reported to village Munda. The Panchayat was convened by Munda and in the Panchayati the claim of the Defendants was upheld. According to the Defendants, the original sale deed was all along in possession of the Defendant No. 1, but once it was given to the husband of the Plaintiff No. 2, who is an advocate. Defendants' further case was that after the death of the parents of the Plaintiffs, they permitted for burial of the dead body in a portion of the land, as the father of the Plaintiffs was a close friend of the fathers of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2. Besides the same, the Defendants have taken other legal pleas challenging the maintainability of the Plaintiffs' suit.;