VISHNUDEO NARAYAN, J. - (1.) THIS appeal at the instance of the plaintiffs -appellant has been preferred against the impugned judgment and decree of reversal dated 23.12.1989 and 6.1.1990 respectively passed in Title Appeal No. 117 of 1988 by Shri Manohar Lal Visa, 2nd Additional District Judge, Giridih whereby and whereunder the appeal was allowed and the judgment of the trial Court passed in Title Suit No. 38 of 1985 was set aside and the suit was dismissed.
(2.) THE plaintiff -appellant have filed the said title suit for a declaration that the suit and detailed in the Schedule of the plaint is their raiyati land in which they have their right, title and interest and for recovery of possession evicting the defendants -respondent therefrom. The suit land is 4.06 acres consisting of several plots appertaining to Khata No. 1 Village -Kharna, Police Station -Gomia, District -Giridih. The case of the plaintiffs -appellant (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff), in brief, is that the suit land was the self -acquired property of Aghanua Mahto, son of Amrita Mahto, recorded in the survey records of right and said Aghanua Mahto died few years after survey operation leaving behind his four sons, Bhagi Mahto, Churo Mahto, Bhadra Mahto and Chattu Mahto and all this four sons jointly inherited the suit land as the members of the joint Hindu Mitakshara family and came in cultivating possession over the same and paid rent to the ex -landlord and got rent receipts. All the four sons of Aghanua Mahto died in the sate of jointness and plaintiff No. 1 Tulo Mahto is the son of Churo Mahto deceased, plaintiff Nos. 2, 3, and 4 are the sons of Bhadra Mahto deceased, plaintiff No. 11 Mangar Mahto is the son of Chattu Mahto deceased and plaintiff Nos. 5, 6 and 7 are the sons of Manger Mahto aforesaid, plaintiff Nos. 8, 9 and 10 are the descendants of Bhagi Mahto deceased aforesaid. It is alleged that the descendants of Aghanua Mahto shifted to Village -Pejuwa in the year 1965 to look after their properties which had been acquired by their ancestor and prior to that plaintiff Nos. 1 and 10 were looking after the properties at Village -Pejuwa. The further case of the plaintiffs is that the defendants -respondent are the relatives of Aghanua Mahto aforesaid being the brother -in -law of the plaintiff, resident of Village - Kharna and they used to look after the suit land at the instance and permission of Aghanua Mahto and they used to maintain themselves from the usufruct of the suit land and they also used to give the part of usufruct to Aghanua Mahto and their descendants. It is alleged that on death of their father, Lalman Mahto, the defendant -respondent continued to cultivate and manage that suit land with the permission of plaintiff Tulo Mahto, Indra Ram Mahto and Manger Mahto and they used the usufruct for their maintenance and used to pay rent of the suit land and the remaining usufruct of the suit land was given to the plaintiffs, who used to sheer between them. It is alleged that the defendants - respondent due to their sheer dishonestly have executed a sale deed dated 11.1.1984 in respect of the suit land in favour of their respective wives and on getting information in respect thereof, the plaintiffs made protest and filed Miscellaneous Eviction Case No. 47 of 1984 before the Circle Officer, Gomia which was disposed of in favour of the plaintiffs and the record of the said case was forwarded to the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms which gave rise to Miscellaneous Case No. 2 of 1985 and recommendation made by the Circle officer was set aside and the plaintiffs were directed to get their title declared by the competent Civil Court in respect of the suit land. Lastly, it has been alleged that the defendant -respondent have neither right, title and interest in the suit land nor possession over the same and inspite of demands made by the plaintiffs to hand over the suit land and house to them, the defendants have evaded to do so and hence, the necessity for the suit.
(3.) THE case of the defendants -respondent (hereinafter referred to as defendants), inter alia, is that the plaintiffs are not at all in any way related with Aghanua Mahto, the recorded tenant of Khata No. 1 of Village -Kharna and they have no right, title, interest in and possession over the suit land at any point of time and they have also no locus standi to file this suit. It is alleged that Aghanua Mahto, the recorded tenant of Khata No. 1 of Village -Kharna died in the year 1918 and he was unmarried having no issue and on his death, the landlord resumed the suit land and came in possession over the same as his Bakast land. Aghanua Mahto had no legal heirs and as such the case of his heirs shifting to Village -Pejuwa is a myth and this Aghanua Mahto, the recorded tenant of Khata No. 1 had no land in Village -Pejuwa. Lalman Mahto, the father of the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 was not at all related with Aghanua Mahto and he was not his brother -in -law as alleged though Lalman Mahto aforesaid had sometimes cultivated the suit land on behalf of Aghanua Mahto, who was maintaining himself from the usufruct of the said land and it is false to say that the remaining usufruct was shared by the heirs of Aghanua Mahto, since Aghanua Mahto was unmarried and issueless. Further case of the defendants is that the landlord settled the suit land with Lalman Mahto and confirmed the settlement by grant of hukumnama dated Magh 15 Sambat 1985 and also granted rent receipt, and since then, Lalman Mahto remained in cultivating possession of the suit land exercising his right as raiyat openly and adversely to the knowledge of all including the plaintiffs for more than statutory period and thus, he has perfected his right, title by adverse possession and, even assuming though not admitting that the plaintiffs are the heirs and legal representatives of Aghanua Mahto, they have lost their right, if any, as per the law of limitation. Said Lalman Mahto died leaving behind his two sons i.e. defendant Nos. 1 and 2, who inherited him and came in possession over the suit land and defendant No. 1 has constructed three houses on Plot No. 74 about 20 years ago and he is living there along with his family and these defendants have been mutated in the Serista of the landlord and thereafter he was recognized as the tenant by the State and he paid rent to them and got rent receipts, it is false to say that Lalman Mahto or his sons i.e. the defendants have ever cultivated the suit land with the permission of the plaintiffs and have ever delivered any usufruct of the suit land to them. The defendant as per their right have executed the sale deed in favour of their respective waives in respect of the suit land.;