The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Section 15 (2) (b) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, to determine the devolution of property left by a deceased female Hindu and the importance of the source from which the deceased female had inherited the property.

This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 30-5-96, passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, Darrang, Mangaldoi, in Title Appeal No. 7 of 1995, dismissing the appeal and upholding the judgment and decree, dated 29-9-94, passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Mangaldoi, in Title Suit No. 31/97 partly decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs-respondents.

2. Facts of the plaintiffs case, in brief, may be stated thus : The suit land, in question, originally belonged to one Shyamraj Kalita, whose first wife pre-deceased him leaving behind their daughter, Teveli. The plaintiffs are sons of Taveli, who lived with her husband. After the death of Tevelis mother, Shyamrai Kalita had married one Maheswari @ Someswari, a widow, who had, at the time of her marriage with Shyamrai Kalita, a son, Jagat Kalita, begotten from her predeceased husband. After Maheswaris marriage with Shyamrai Kalita, Jagat Kalita continued to live with his mother, Maheswari, and after the death of Jagat Kalita, Dhanista Kalita, who is daughter of the said Jagat Kalita (since deceased), lived with Maheswari and remained in occupation of the suit land. After Maheswaris death, Dhanistha Kalita continued to occupy the suit land and she transferred some plots, out of the total suit land, to other defendants by various registered sale deeds. After Shyamrais death, the suit land had devolved upon Maheswari and on her death, the suit land was inherited by the present plaintiffs as heirs of deceased Taveli, because Maheswari did not leave behind any issue through her second husband, Shyamrai. According to the plaintiff/respondents, Jagat Kalita had no right to inherit the properties of Shyamrai Kalita and hence, question of his daughter, Dhanistha, inheriting the suit land did not arise at all and she could not have legally sold the suit land or any part therof to any one. The plaintiffs instituted a mutation case, but on the objection raised by Dhanistha, their prayer for mutation was rejected. The plaintiffs also came to know that Dhanistha had mutated her name in some of the disputed land. Though the plaintiffs asked the defendants to vacate the suit land and deliver possession thereof to the plaintiffs, the defendants refused to do so. The plaintiffs have, therefore, instituted the title suit seeking declaration of their rights, title and interest over the suit land and also for recovery of possession thereof.

3. The defendants, Dhanistha and others, contested the suit by filing their written statements, wherein it was contended, inter alia, that the plaintiffs had no right, title and interest over the suit land and that even if they had any title, the same stood extinguished by adverse possession inasmuch as Dhanistha had been in occupation of the suit land for 30 years, exercising openly rights of ownership over the suit land. Dhanistha inheritted the suit land from her father, Jagat, because being grant-daughter of Maheswari, Dhanistha was left behind by Maheswari as her only heir. The defendants, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4. The learned Trial Court framed the following issues :

(i) Whether the plaintiffs have any cause of action for the suit.

(ii) Whether the plaintiffs have any right, title over the suit land and whether they can have any claim now?

(iii) Whether the defendant No. 1 and his mother had right, title and possession over the suit land?

(iv) Whether the defendant No. 4 and 5 have acquired right, title and interest and possession over the suit land?

(v) Whether the suit is barred by the adverse possession?

(vi) Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

(vii) Whether the Court has jurisdiction to try this suit?

(viii) Whether proper Court fee is paid in this suit?

(ix) To what relief, if any are the parties entitled to?

5. Both the sides adduced oral as well as documentary evidence. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Munsiff by judgment, dated 29-9-94, declared that the plaintiffs had rights, title, i