M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) THIS appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29.4.1987 passed by Sub Judge II, Gumla in Title Appeal No. 16/9 of 1981/85 whereby he has dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiffs/appellants and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Munsif, Gumla in Title Suit No. 160/69. The plaintiffs/appellants filed the aforementioned suit for declaration that partition deed dated 26.6.1969 is null and void and is not binding on the plaintiffs.
(2.) PLAINTIFFS case inter alia is that the lands under Khewat 23/1 and 23/2 Bhuinhari and Khatas 245 and 125 of village Pandaria P.S. Sisai, Dist. Gumla, originally belonged to one Sibu Oraon S/o Bandhu Oraon who has been recorded as such in the cadastral survey. Sibu Oraon had two daughters one of whom was married to Bijua and the other daughter was married to Dere Oraon. The further case is that Sibu Oraon, having no son, transferred his lands to his damads. Bijua and Dere vide registered deed dated 5.7.1912. It was confirmed by the then land lord also. After the execution of the deeds, Bijua and Dere remained in joint possession of the properties Dere died before revisional survey, leaving behind his son, Sibram. During revisional survey Bijua and Sibram were recorded separately for the lands as they were cultivating the lands separately for convenience sake. One Lachoo Oraon was also recorded for the lands of Sibu Oraon. Bijua died leaving behind his only son Sibu and Sibram died leaving behind Manu and Lachoo. There was one Lachoo Oraon son of Fagu Oraon recorded in Khewat 23/2 who also died leaving behind no issue. The plaintiffs and Sibu were and are the bhuinhars recorded in Khata No. 236 and are paying rent jointly. Sibu has only one daughter, Hira, the defendant, who has been married to Zarku Oraon son of Jipa Oraon of Armai Mahuatoli P.S. Gumla in a regular form and Hira used to reside in her sasural but as her father Sibu became old, she had been to her fathers house for attending him and on 19.7.1969 Sibu Oraon died and at present Hira is residing in the house of her father. The plaintiffs are the only reversioners and heirs of Sibu Oraon being the bhuinhars of one khunt. The plaintiffs are cultivating the land recorded in the name of Sibu since long in the life time of Sibu when Sibu became old and after his death the plaintiffs are cultivating the lands as the heirs and successors of Sibu. The defendants wanted to grab some lands and instigated her father to execute a partition deed and on 26.6.1969 got a partition deed registered which includes land in Khata No. 322, 125 and 245. The deed of partition gives no title to the defendant and no procedure under Section 46 CNT Act was acquired a bhuinhari lands and other lands of Sibu Oraon. The alleged deed is void, illegal, inoperative and not binding on the plaintiffs who are the heir of bhuinhar, Sibu Oraon. The plaintiffs still pay rent for those lands. The deed has cast a cloud over the title of the plaintiffs over the suit lands and hence the necessity of the suit for the aforesaid relief. Defendant/respondent contested the suit by filing written statement. The case of the defendant is that Sibu Oraon son of Bandhu Oraon had three daughters viz., Mostt. Ledari, Mostt. Gauri and Mostt. Hira. Mostt. Ledari was married to Bijua, Mostt. Gauri to Dere and Mostt. Hira to Lachhoo. Sibu Oraon transferred his property separately to his three son -in -laws. As Dere Oraon was of village Pandharia Khas, he lived as usual in his ancestral house and cultivated the lands allotted to him while Bijua Oraon and Lachhoo Oraon lived together in the house of Sibu Oraon and cultivated the lands given to them jointly. Before revisional survey Bijua Oraon died leaving behind his son, Sibu Oraon while Dere Oraon died leaving his son Sibram Oraon and so the lands transferred to Dere Oraon were recorded separately in the name of Sibram Oraon and the house allotted to Bijua Oraon and Lachoo Oraon. After the revisional survey firstly Lachoo and then his wife, Hira died heirless. Sibu Oraon became the sole owner of the lands and he had been in possession of the same after paying rent. After him his daughter is in possession of the same. Plaintiffs are never in possession of the lands. The suit is also vague as plaintiffs have not detailed the lands over which they want to get their right declared. The suit is also undervalued and the suit property is more than Rs. 6000/ -. The further plea is that the sons -in -laws of Sibu Oraon and their descendants cannot be bhuinhar in the khunt of Sibu Oraon, It is wrong that plaintiffs are the bhuinhars of the same khant Sibu Oraon son of Bandhu Oraon had no descendant in the male line. He married his daughter to persons of three different families and allotted his lands separately to them and separate khatas have been prepared in their names. The number of one family cannot claim the lands of a different family, Sibu Oraon son of Bijua Oraon had only one daughter, the defendant. He expressed his intention to marry her to a boy and adopt him as his ghardamad. After making arrangement, he along with some persons went to Armai Mahuatoli, RS. Gumla and promised to adopt Zarku Oraon as his ghardamad. He brought Zarku Oraon in his house, kept him, married him with his daughter and adopted him as ghardamad. The ghardamad was spendthrift. Sibu Oraon always advised him not to do so but he did not listen to it. Sibu Oraon rebuked him for this and this annoyed, Zarku Oraon and he left the village. Under the impression that the property would, be disposed of by the ghardamad, Sibu Oraon and his daughter divided the property between them through a registered deed on 26.6.1969. A few weeks after the execution of deed the father died and defendant is in possession of the land since then. The plaintiffs have got no right, title or interest over the land and the suit is fit to be dismissed with costs.
(3.) THE trial Court framed the following issue for consideration : 1. Have the plaintiffs got cause of action for the suit? 2. Is the suit as framed maintainable? 3. Is the suit undervalued and the court -fee paid insufficient? 4. Is the partition deed dated 26.6.1969 valid and binding upon the plaintiffs? 5. Are the plaintiffs bhuihars in the khunt of Sibu Oraon? 6. Are the plaintiffs reversioners of Sibu Oraon in accordance with the customs in the matters of inheritance and succession prevalent in their community? 7. To what relief or reliefs, if any, are the plaintiffs entitled?;