M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) THIS second appeal by the defendants -appellants is against the judgment of reversal.
(2.) THE plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 22 of 1979 for declaration of title over the suit property and for recovery of possession. The said suit was dismissed by Subordinate Judge, Jamshedpur in terms of judgment and decree dated 13th September, 1982. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff preferred Title Appeal No. 02 of 1982 which was allowed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Jamshedpur in terms of judgment and decree dated 12th June, 1990 and set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Hence, this Second Appeal by the defendants. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass: The suit property is tiled katcha house comprising of rooms and varanda etc. surrounded by boundary walls. The suit property was purchased by the plaintiff's father from one Mohan Singh. Plaintiff's case was that thereafter the suit property was allotted to the father of the plaintiff by TISCO Ltd, Jamshedpur for residential purposes. The plaintiff along with his father Dhanna Singh was residing in the said house. After the death of plaintiff's father Dhanna Singh some times in 1953, defendant No. 4 field a petition before the Land Department, TISCO for allotment of the said holding in her favour on the ground that she is wife of Dhanna Singh. The TISCO Ltd. Jamshedpur accordingly mutated the name of defendant No. 4 wild respect to the suit house for residential purposes. Plaintiff's further case was that the defendant No. 4 did not pay the municipal rent and the mortgage money in respect of the mortgage of the house to one Madho Singh and ultimately the plaintiff paid the same. It was further pleaded that in 1956, TISCO Ltd. sent a notice in the name of defendant No. 4 for payment of allotment charges and the plaintiff paid the allotment charges and continued possession of the said house in his own right and since then he dad been possessing the house premises and perfected his title by adverse possession. The plaintiff's further case was that in the year 1970, the defendants forcibly trespassed one of the rooms of the house premises and started living there. One more room was also trespassed by the defendant for which the plaintiff filed criminal cases. In this way, the plaintiff claimed declaration of title of his own right by adverse possession.
(3.) THE defendants appeared and filed written statement stating inter alia that the suit premises was originally purchased by Dhanna Singh, who was the absolute owner. Defendant No. 4 is the wife and defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are the sons of Dhanna Singh. It was further stated that first wife of Dhanna Singh died in the year 1942 and, thereafter, the suit premises was acquired by them. Defendants' further case is that defendants have been, at all point of time, residing in the same house and the allegation of trespass is absolutely false and fabricated. The defendants further pleaded that in the criminal cases instituted by the plaintiff for trespass, the defendants were acquitted.;