Amitav K. Gupta, J :

This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 27.4.1996 and 25.5.1996 respectively passed in Title Appeal no.99 of 1991 by the Addl. Judicial Commissioner, IInd, Ranchi, reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Sub-Judge,IV, Ranchi in Partition Suit no. 280 of 1996.

2. The plaintiffs instituted Partition Suit No.280 of 1996, alleging therein that they are the sons of the late Bandhu Oraon, the adopted son of the recorded tenant namely Late Dhemna Oraon. That late Bandhu Oraon was recognized and treated as the adopted son of Dhemna Oraon by the society at large and he performed the last rites of Dhemna Oraon, who died in the year 1949. It is averred that as per customary right of the Oraon, Bandhu Oraon as adopted son inherited the suit land and other lands of Dhemna Oraon and remained in possession thereof. That a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. was initiated with regard to plot no. 687 and 689 and the possession of Bandhu Oraon was confirmed on the said plot. Against the said order, the predecessors-in-interest of the defendants filed Title Suit no. 33 of 1954 which was dismissed as withdrawn and again Title Suit no. 142 of 1955 was instituted by the defendants' predecessors-in-interest which was dismissed for default. Thereafter, another Title Suit no. 214 of 1956 was instituted in the court of Munsif, Ranchi, by the predecessors-in-interest of the defendants, alleging that they were the agnates of late Dhemna Oraon and Bandhu Oraon was not the adopted son of Dehmna Oraon. The said suit was decreed in terms of judgment dated 28.11.1958 whereafter, Bandhu Oraon preferred Title Appeal no. 3 of 1959, before the Court of Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi and in the said appeal, a compromise petition was filed wherein the defendants-predecessors-in-interest admitted and accepted that Bandhu Oraon was the adopted son of Dhemna Oraon. It is averred that late Bandhu Oroan, as an adopted son, was entitled to the entire land of R.S. Khata no. 65 recorded in the name of Dhemna Oraon, however, he agreed to part with 10(ten) annas share of the aforesaid land in favour of the defendants/ predecessors-in-interest, and accepted 6(six) annas share in order to put quietus to the domestic quarrel and litigation and Title Appeal no. 3 of 1959 was decreed in terms of the compromise and settlement arrived at between the parties.

3. It is averred that the plaintiffs, as sons of late Bandhu Oraon, succeeded to the share and interest of Bandhu Oraon in the suit land and remained in joint possession with the defendants in terms of the compromise decree passed in Title Appeal no. 3 of 1959 and the said compromise decree is conclusive and binding upon the defendants. It is alleged that the plaintiffs made repeated request to the defendants to amicably partition the suit property in terms of the compromise and decree but the defendants did not agree neither they paid any heed to the plaintiff's request accordingly, Partition Suit no. 280 of 1986 was instituted by the plaintiffs for declaring their 6 annas share over the suit land.

4. The defendants contested the suit and filed their written statement challenging the maintainability of the suit on the grounds of limitation, waiver and estoppal, acquiescence and also pleaded that the suit was barred by principle of res judicata. It is averred that the recorded tenant Dhemna Oraon died issueless and he had never adopted Bandhu Oraon as his son, hence, Bandhu Oraon neither inherited nor succeeded to the suit property after the death of Dhemna Oroan. It is stated that the plaintiffs have no right, title and interest over the suit land and the compromise decree in Title Appeal no. 3 of 1959 amounts to transfer of the suit property which is hit by the provision of Section 46 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, accordingly, the compromise decree is void in law.

5. The learned Trial Court framed 5 issues viz,:

1. Is the suit of the plaintiffs maintainable?

2. H