JUDGMENT

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J. - Heard Mr. Srijit Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Piyush Krishna Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. This Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 31.10.1990 and 15.11.1990 respectively passed by 2nd Additional District Judge, Deoghar in Title Appeal No. 103 of 1977, whereby, the appeal was allowed and the judgment and decree dated 11.08.1977 and 23.08.1977 respectively passed in Title Suit No. 127 of 1974/02 of 1977 was set aside and the judgment passed by the trial court was reversed by the appellate court.

3. The suit was instituted for declaration that defendant no.3 is not the adopted son of deceased Tentar Mandal and also for declaration that the adoption-deed no. 195 dated 27.07.1972 of Deoghar Sub-Registry Office is forged and fabricated and the same is illegal, inoperative and void deed. A prayer for permanently restraining defendant no.3 or any other person through him, who claim defendant no.3 to be adopted son of deceased Tentar Mandal was also made in the suit.

4. It was the case of the plaintiffs (respondents in the present Second Appeal) before the trial court that they are daughters and only heirs of the deceased Tentar Mandal in whose name Jamabandi no. 12 of Mouza Jamua, P.S. Mohanpur stands recorded. They claimed that their father Tentar Mandal leaving behind the plaintiffs/respondents as only heirs to inherit and succeed him, as their mother predeceased their father. The plaintiffs/respondents claimed that they were living with their father in their father''s house and were looking after him and maintained him so long he was alive. It was further case of the plaintiffs/respondents that Tentar Mandal entrusted the lands of the Jamabandi to plaintiff no.1 under Section 22 of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act, during his life time to avoid any difference from any corner and he gave information to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Deoghar to that effect which was noted as information vide Revision Miscellaneous Case No. 167 of 1963-64. The plaintiffs/respondents claimed to be in peaceful cultivating possession of their father''s land after the said entrustment and after the death of their father, they claimed to have succeeded the entire land and other movable and immovable properties of Tentar Mandal. According to the plaintiffs/respondents, when they were ploughing the Bihantar Khet for showing paddy seeds, defendant no.1 also wanted to plough the same land and when the plaintiffs objected, defendant no.1 stated that deceased Tentar Mandal (father of the plaintiffs) had adopted defendant no.3, namely, Pramod Kumar Mandal (appellant in the present Second Appeal), which surprised the plaintiffs and on enquiry, they know that defendant nos. 1 and 2 have adoption-deed, which is a forged and fabricated document. They alleged that Left Thumb Impression on the same adoption-deed is not of Tentar Mandal and the said deed was not attested as required under law. Their alternative case was that even if the said deed of adoption was executed by Tentar Mandal, that was under false representation, inducement and fraud played upon him and as such the deed is void and inoperative in law. The plaintiffs/respondents also claimed that they had been continuously living with their father since 1964 and they asserted that their father never executed any adoption-deed nor adopted Pramod Kumar Mandal, defendant no.3, nor there was any occasion for such adoption. The plaintiffs/respondents further asserted that Pramod Kumar Mandal never live with the plaintiffs'' father nor he was treated as son of the plaintiffs'' father. They also alleged that recital about legal formalities, Puja and actual giving and taking of Pramod Kumar Mandal in presence of agnates, friends and others, is false and there was no occasion of assembly of agnates, friends and others nor there was any Puja nor there was any actual giving and taking of defend