M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) THIS second appeal at the instance of the plaintiff -appellant is directed against the judgment and decree dated 25.1.1988 passed by 6th Additional District Judge, Palamau, in Title Appeal No. 21/86 whereby he has dismissed the appeal and allowed the cross -objection filed by the defendants -respondents and set -aside the judgment and decree passed by the Subordinate Judge, Palamau, in Title Suit No. 63/83.
(2.) THE plaintiff -appellant filed the aforementioned suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession over the suit land which comprised within khata No. 54 of Village Manasoti, P.S. Daltonganj in the District of Palamau. The plaintiff -defendant Nos. 5 to 7 are the grandsons of Bhaju Singh while defendant Nos. 3 and 4 are the sons of Bhaju Singh. Bhaju Singh alleged to have purchased the land from Durgi Singh son of Sheodayal Singh who was admittedly recorded raiyat in respect of the suit land. The plaintiffs case, inter alia, is that he being one of the heirs of Bhaju Singh, has got title over the suit land and he has been coming in lawful possession of the same since 1973. The plaintiffs further case is that his father Latmu Singh and his uncle Deowan Singh had mortgaged the entire suit land for a sum of Rs. 200/ - with defendant Nos. 1 and 2 for a period of 2 years. Subsequently, when the plaintiff and other heirs of Bhaju Singh wanted to redeem the mortgage, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 refused. Accordingly on 31.3.1976 the plaintiff filed a petition under Section 71 Chotanagpur Tenancy Act for recovery of possession of the suit land but it was dismissed on 19.7.1976. The appeal preferred by the plaintiff was also dismissed on 16.2.1982. It was alleged by the plaintiff that during the pendency of the aforesaid appeal defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had delivered possession in favour of the plaintiff in respect of portion of the suit land which was duly intimated to the appellate Court.
(3.) THE contesting defendant Nos. 1 and 2 filed their written statement, inter alia, stating that Bhaju Singh could not pay rent and, therefore, he surrendered the entire lands of Khata No. 54, Subsequently, the ex -landlord settled the entire suit land with Nirachchal Singh, father of the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in the year 1936 and since then the settlee and after his death, these defendants have been coming in exclusive possession of the entire suit property and paying rent, at first, to the ex - landlord and then to the defendant - State of Bihar. These defendants have totally denied that the property was ever mortgaged by the plaintiffs father to the defendants or to their father. The trial Court framed the following issues for consideration. "1. Is the suit maintainable as framed? 2. Has the plaintiff any cause of action for the suit? 3. Whether the land was surrendered by Bhaju Singh as alleged? 4. Whether the land was settled to Nirchhal Singh, father of the defendants 1 and 2 in the year 1936? 5. Is the suit barred by law of limitation? 6. Has the plaintiff perfected his right, title and possession over the suit land? 7. To what relief or reliefs if any the plaintiff is entitled -;