- (1.) THIS second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2003 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No. VII, Hazaribagh in Title Appeal No. 28 of 1993 confirming the judgment and decree dated 27.3.1993 passed by learned Munsif, dismissing the Title Suit No. 105 of 1998.
(2.) MR . Anwar, learned senior counsel, appearing for the appellants, assailed the impugned judgment on various grounds. The plaintiff -appellants filed this suit for declaration of title over the suit land described in Column No 3 of Schedule A and for declaration that the order of Collector dated 30.12.1985/2.1.1986 passed in Restoration Case No. 279 of 1982/ 36 of 1983 and the orders of appellate and revisional authority were without jurisdiction and were obtained by fraud. Declaration was also sought that in the event of acquisition of suit land, the plaintiffs were entitled to have the award and compensation roll prepared in their names.
(3.) REGARDING Issue No. 5, whether the plaintiffs/appellants had title over the suit property, the trial court, inter alia, held as follows: - "I am constrained to find that the alleged surrender deed, which is the foundation of the case of plaintiffs, is an illegal and void document and it cannot create any right, title and interest in favour of ex -land lady. Consequently, the alleged settlement in favour of Jainul Abedin, although could not be proved by the plaintiffs, also cannot create any right, title and interest in favour of Jainul Abedin and likewise Gaya Ram Bhandari is also devoid of any right, title and interest in such suit land in view of fact that he also claims his title through Jainul Abedin only. Thus, this important issued is decided against the plaintiffs.  Regarding Issue No. 3, whether the suit was barred under the provisions of Chota Nagpur Tenancy (C.N.T.) Act, the trial Court held as follows: - ".Hence I am further constrained to hold that on the date of application for restoration by Chhatu Pahan, the title of plaintiffs was not perfected for being in allegedly continuous possession for more than 12 years.  "17. Thus, from the discussions made above, it is gathered that the plea of fraud taken by plaintiffs to have been played upon by the defendant No. 1 before the court in restoration case No. 279/1982 could not be substantiated. Under such situation it can be said well that present suit is also barred U/s. 258 of the C.N.T. Act and hence, this court is not competent to entertain the present suit also and this issue is decided against the plaintiffs.  ;