M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) THIS second appeal by the defendants -appellants is against the judgment and decree dated 17.5.1990 passed by 2nd Additional District Judge, Jamshedpur in Title Appeal No. 20 of 1985 whereby he has reversed the judgment and decree dated 22.8.1985 passed by 2nd Additional Subordinate Judge, Jamshedpur in Title Suit No. 9 of 1982 and thereby decreed the suit.
(2.) THE facts of the case lie in a narrow compass: The plaintiffs tiled the aforementioned suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession and in the alternative, recovery of possession of the suit land described in Schedule A of the plaint which consists of various plots of khata No. 66 of Mauza Digha, P.S. Ghatshila, District Singhbhum comprising an area of 4.12 acres. The plaintiffs also sought a decree for declaration that the sale deed executed by Most. Budhni in favour of the defendants is void, illegal and inoperative. The suit property originally belonged to late Karu Santhal. Late Aina Santhalin was the wife of late Karu Santhal. Out of the wedlock of Karu Santhal and Aina Santhalin, a daughter, Most. Budhni, was born. After the death of Karu Santhal, his widow Aina Santhalin re -married with Bikram Santhal, brother of Karu Santhal and out of this wedlock, the plaintiff was born. In the year 1944, Aina Santhalin, as wife of Bikram Santhal, transferred the suit property left by Karu Santhal treating the said property as her property in the name of her son -plaintiff. Plaintiffs further case is that some time in 1946, Most. Budhni, daughter of Karu Santhal, filed a Title Suit being Title Suit No. 224 of 1946 which was eventually compromised. Most. Budhni, in her turn, sold the suit property to the defendant in the year 1977. Thereafter, a proceeding under Sec. 145, CrPC was initiated which was decided against the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession, etc.
(3.) THE defendant -appellant contested the suit by filing written statement denying and disputing each and every allegation made by the plaintiff in the plaint. The defendant denied the allegation that Most. Aina sold the suit land in favour of the plaintiff for legal necessity and delivered possession of the same. The defendant also denied the allegation that the plaintiff has been paying rent in respect of the suit land.;