I.A. No. 3197 of 2015

1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 61 days in preferring the present appeal.

2. Having regard to the reasons stated in the instant interlocutory application, I.A. No. 3197 of 2015 stands allowed and disposed of. Delay of 61 days in preferring the appeal is hereby condoned.

S. A. No. 282 of 2015

3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants.

4. The appellants are original defendants.

5. The suit being Title Suit No. 07 of 2006 has been instituted by the plaintiffs for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit land and confirmation of possession and in alternative for recovery of possession and for permanent injunction against the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the suit land. The suit land is Khewat No. 3/20.

6. It is an admitted position of the parties that the suit land is Mundari Khuntkatti land. The last Munda was Mangu Munda, who died issueless. The plaintiff has claimed Khewat No. 3/20 being the nearest agnates, as per the Munda tradition.

7. The defendants have opposed the prayer by taking various plea regarding non maintainability of the suit, limitation and possession over the suit land. The genealogical table has also been disputed by the defendants.

8. On the basis of the pleading, the Trial Court has framed following issues:

(1) Is the suit maintainable?

(2) Have plaintiffs valid cause of action ?

(3) Whether plaintiffs have valid right, title, interest and possession over the suit land?

(4) Whether the defendants are relatives of the plaintiff?

(5) Is genealogical table given by the plaintiffs wrong or incorrect?

(6) Are plaintiffs entitled to any relief or reliefs as claimed?”

Issue nos. 3, 4 and 5 have been dealt simultaneously and findings have been recorded as follows:

“19. From perusal of entire evidence it is clear that plaintiff has been able to prove that he is agnates of the deceased Mangu Khewatdar of Khewat No. 3/20 and he is entitled of his land by way of successor and defendants are not nearest agnates of deceased Mangu Khewatdar of Khewat no. 3/20 rather they are distant relation hence they are not entitled to get the lands of deceased Mangu Munda. So the defendants could not support his claim and the plaintiffs have successfully proved his claim over the suit land. The plaintiffs are paying the rent and they are in possession over the suit land. Therefore, it held that the plaintiffs have valid right and title and possession over the suit land. The defendants are not entitled to get any claim over the suit land and genealogy given by the plaintiffs is correct and defendant genealogy is wrong, if correct then they are distant relationship, not entitled for the land for the suit. These three issues are decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.”

9. On the basis of finding that the plaintiff is nearest agnate of deceased Mangu Khewatdar, the suit has been decreed in favour of the plaintiffs. Being aggrieved, an appeal being Title Appeal No. 22 of 2011 ha been filed by the defendants. The Appellate Court has formulated following points for consideration:

(1) Is the suit maintainable?

(2) Whether the plaintiffs/respondents have valid right, title, interest and possession over the suit land?

(3) Whether the appellants/defendants are relatives of the respondents/plaintiffs?

(4) Is genealogical table given by the respondents/plaintiffs wrong or incorrect?

(5) Whether the suit is barred by law of Limitation?

(6) Whether the plaintiffs/respondents have valid cause of action?”

10. While dealing with the point nos. 2, 3 & 4, the Appellate Court has approved the findings recorded by the Trial Court that the plaintiff being the nearest agnate is entitle to inherit the office of Munda with respect to the suit land i.e. Khewat No. 3/20. Further points raised by the appellants that the suit is not maintainable under Section 258 of the CNT Act and limitation has suffi