M.P.VARMA, J.

1. The State of Bihar through the Collector, Monghyr and the Assistant Superintendent of Commercial Taxes-in-charge, Jamui, circle Jamui, District Monghyr, who were the defendants-first party in the suit, have filed this appeal against the judgement and decree passed by the Subordinate Judge, Monghyr, in Title Suit No. 20 of 1963. The suit was filed by the plaintiff-respondents Smt. Panchratan Devi. Her husband Chandra Shekhar Prasad was arrayed as defendant second party in the suit.

2. The facts giving rise to the suit are as follows. The Assistant Superintendent of Commercial Taxes, Jamui circle levied two certificate cases Nos. 13 TT of 1955-56 and 53 TT of 1956-57 against the defendant second party, namely, the husband of the plaintiff, who was working as the Manager of Khalsa Motor Service a Road Transport business having its headquarters at Jamui. The certificate cases were for recovery of the commercial taxes due from him. On 8-2-1962, both the certificate cases were struck of on the report of the Assistant Superintendent of Commercial Taxes-in-charge, Jamui Circle, that the defendant second party had no movable or immovable properties except a gun. On 10-2-I 9B2, the defendant 1st party again moved the court of certificate officer stating that the earlier report was incorrect and that the certificate-debtor defendant second party had a pucca house at Jamui and got the certificate cases revived which were numbered as Certificate Case No 73TT of 56-57 and Certificate Case No : 44TT of 1957-58. The aforesaid property was attached in the proceeding.

3. The case of the plaintiff is that, there was a partition in the family of her husband in which he got 25 acres of land with a katcha house standing thereon along with other properties by a registered Tamliknama (Ext. 4) dated 20-7-49; the land appertained to plot No. 581, khata No. 41 at mauza Jamui. On 25-2-50, her husband transferred the said 26 acres of land with the said house by a registered deed of gift to her. She accepted the gift and took possession of the property and is coming in continuous and exclusive possession thereof since then.

4. It is her further case that she is the only child of her father and she got Rs. 10,000 from him. Her father was working then as a senior clerk in the office of the Excise Department at Monghyr. She further got some ornaments and cash from her nani and from her mother too. She, therefore, got demolished the old katcha house standing on the aforesaid plot and with her own money she constructed a new pucca house thereon and got her name registered in the Union Committee at Jamui and in the chaukidari-assessment register and has been paying taxes since then.

5. In the certificate cases, referred to above, she filed objections under S.21 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914, hereinafter called "the Act". On 8-6-1962, she produced evidence of her title and possession over the suit property; but, the learned Certificate Officer rejected her claim by order dated 13-4-1963 and directed to put her property described at the foot of the plaint for sale, hence the necessity of filing the suit. The suit was filed on 29-4-1963.

6. The case of the defendants-appellants on the other hand is that the suit property in question has been owned and possessed by defendant second party Chandra Shekhar Prasad, who is the certificate-debtor in the aforesaid certificate cases. According to the defendant-appellants only the front portion of the house was demolished and a new construction was raised by the defendant second party-respondents with his own income and fund and that the suit-land being ancestral joint Hindu family was allotted to the share of the defendant second party. It is also the case of the defendant-appellants that the deed of gift executed by the certificate-debtor Chandra Shekhar Prasad, defendant second party-respondents, was only a device to defraud the Government of its outstanding dues and tha