NARENDRA NATH TIWARI, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 22.5.2001 passed by the 3rd Additional District Judge, Jamshedpur in Title Appeal No. 9191/36/97 setting aside the judgment and decree dated 3.7.1991 passed by the Subordinate Judge 3rd, Jamshedpur in Title Suit No. 14/1987. The defendants are the appellants. The plaintiffs filed the said suit praying relief, inter alia, for a decree of declaration that the plaintiffs are the absolute owner having right, title and interest in respect of Schedule 'B ' premises and that the defendants have no right or interest in respect of the same and also for delivery of possession of the Schedule 'A ' property in favour of the plaintiffs.
(2.) THE case of the plaintiff was that the double storied building standing on a piece of land measuring 0.219 acres more or less situated in bank areas bearing TISCO 'sHolding No. B now Holding No. 2 described in Schedule 'A ' of the plaint within the Jamshedpur town originally leased out to Nariman B. Patel, father of the plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 by M/s. TISCO Limited, Jamshedpur by an indenture of lease dated 30.3.37 Nariman B. Patel subsequently constructed a double storied building. He assigned the said premises to his two sons (plaintiffs) by registered deed of assignment dated 18/19.7.1946. According to the plaintiffs, the said property thereafter vested in them and they have been all along residing in the same. The said lease which was for 30 years expired and thereafter the plaintiffs applied for renewal of the lease and M/s. TISCO leased out the said Schedule 'A ' property in their favour by virtue of the duly registered indenture of lease dated 18.8.1971. According to them the defendants had full knowledge about the same. The plaintiffs thus claimed that they have got exclusive right, title and interest over the same. The defendant was employed in TISCO and was allotted a Bungalow by the TISCO and he had been living there with his family. After retirement, the defendant suddenly came on 2.6.1986 and broke open the Northern portion of the first floor in absence of the plaintiffs and forcibly occupied the room along with the furniture and articles. The same was then resisted by the plaintiffs which led to a proceeding under Secs. 144 and 107, Cr PC followed by the said suit. The defendant contested the suit by filing written statement. The defendant after taking usual legal pleas stated that their father was suffering from several mental and physical ailments and the deed of assignment was got executed by the plaintiffs in the state of his unsoundness of mind. The period of lease in the name of their father having expired, the building standing thereon has been jointly inherited by the plaintiff and the defendant along with their sisters. According to the defendant, the plaintiffs had no right to get the fresh lease deed executed only in their favour in the year 1966. The said lease was illegal and invalid and the same was obtained behind the back of the defendant No. 1. According to the defendant, they are the co -shares and even if the lease was executed in favour of the plaintiffs, it was for the benefit of all the co - sharer.
(3.) THE plaintiffs and the defendants in support, of their respective claims adduced oral and 20/5/2014 Page 69 Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Versus Shashi Bala documentary evidences. The trial Court framed several issues while dealing with the issue relating to the deed of assignment dated 18.7.1946 and that of the lease dated 18.8.1971 i.e. issues Nos.;