Judgement

SUBBA RAO, J.: The facts that gave rise to this appeal may be briefly stated. In the plaint there are three Schedules A, B and C. We are concerned in this appeal only with Schedules A and C and nothing, therefore, need be said in regard to Schedule B. The lands described in Schedules A and C were situate in Rohini Ghatwali Estate. When that Estate was in the management of the Court of Wards, on March 25, 1973, the then Deputy Commissioner, Santhal Pargana, on behalf of the Court of Wards representing the said Estate executed a lease in perpetuity in respect of the A Schedule property in favour of Maharaja Sir Jai Mangal Singh Bahadur, the predecessor-in-interest of the 2nd defendant for the purpose of erecting dwelling houses thereon. The 2nd defendant and his ancestors had been in possession of the said property since the date of the said lease. The lands described in Schedule C annexed to the plaint were not covered by the said lease, but it is alleged that the 2nd defendant and his ancestors had been in possession of the same. The plaintiff, who is the present Ghatwal of the Rohini Ghatwali Estate, after attaining majority on October 17, 1949, filed Title Suit No. 37 of