NARENDRA NATH TIWARI, J. - (1.) THIS second appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs -appellants -appellants against the judgment and decree of 3rd Additional District Judge (FTC), Jamtara passed in Title Appeal No. 21/96/17/2002 dismissing the appeal. The plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of their right, title and interest and for declaring that the orders passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner as well as commissioner under the provisions of Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act is void, illegal and ineffective. The plaintiffs also prayed for decree of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from evicting the plaintiffs from the suit property.
(2.) THE case of the plaintiff is that her father was a Jamabandi raiyat and he had been in possession of the suit property measuring an area of 3 1/2 decimals since 1937 which was given to the father of the plaintiff by the defendant No. 9. She claimed to have acquired title by adverse possession. Further case of the plaintiff is that the defendant Nos. 5 to 8 sought restoration of the said land under the provisions of Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act and the restoration was erroneously allowed by the Deputy Commissioner, which was also confirmed by the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division. The said orders are illegal and contrary to law. The defendant No. 8 contested the suit by filing written statement. Defendant Nos. 5 to 7 adopted the said written statement filed by defendant No. 8. In the written statement besides taking usual ground of maintainability of the suit and bar of limitation etc., it was, inter alia, stated that the plaintiffs are strangers and there is no question of acquisition of any right over the suit property as claimed by them. Their claim of existence of residential house over a portion of the same is false. Earlier also such false claim was made by the plaintiffs and the Sub - Divisional officer by order dated 25.4.1984, in R.E. Case No. 2/1982 -83, rejected the same and passed order for eviction. The plaintiffs have absolutely no right and the orders of learned Additional Deputy Commissioner and Commissioner are final and conclusive. The provision of Section 63 of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy (supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949 bars any suit. It has been submitted that Section 69 of the said Act also bars claim of any right over the suit property by any stranger.
(3.) LEARNED trial court framed several issues. Both the parties led evidences. After thorough consideration of the pleadings, evidences and materials on record as well as provisions of law, learned trial court came to the finding that the orders of the authorities are correct and they have acted in accordance with law within their jurisdictions and have rightly ordered for eviction of the plaintiffs from the suit property. The trial court dismissed the plaintiffs suit.;