JUDGMENT :

1. The appellants are the plaintiffs who have preferred the instant appeal against the judgment of reversal passed by the Additional District Judge, Simdega in Title Appeal No. 27 of 1998 whereby and whereunder, the learned appellate Court has reversed and set aside the judgment and decree passed in Partition Suit No. 30 of 1991.

2. Plaintiffs brought the suit for 1/2th share in the joint family property described in the Schedule by partition.

3. As per the case of the plaintiff the suit land fully detailed in Schedule A was recorded in the name of Banmali Sahu and was succeeded by his sons Shivcharan Sahu and Brajmohan Sahu. The property was not partitioned by metes and bounds though for convenience they lived separately. Shivcharan Sahu died on 25.08.1978 leaving his daughter Parwati Devi who died in the year 1990 leaving behind her husband Kristo Sahu Plaintiff no.1 and two daughters Anita Devi and Gita Devi as her heir and successor.

4. Plaintiff No. 1, Kristo Sahu is the husband and plaintiff No. 2, Gita Devi is the daughter of deceased Parwati Devi. It is further case of the plaintiffs that Shivcharan Sahu had sold some land under his possession described in Schedule-B to his daughter Parwati Devi on 29.06.1975 and Parwati Devi and Kristo Sahu also sold some land out of it to different persons as shown in Schedule-C of the plaint. The suit land was joint property of both the parties and they are entitled to half share each. When the demand for partition was not heeded the present suit was filed.

5. The case of defendant No. 1 Brajmohan Sahu is that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit land and partition suit has been filed under the garb of Title Suit. It is the case of the defendant that Shivcharan Sahu died in the year 1952, hence plaintiffs and defendant No. 2 cannot claim any right, title and possession over the suit land. It has been disputed that Shivcharan Sahu and Brajmohan Sahu were full brothers and had not partitioned the suit land. It has been admitted that Parwati Devi died in the year 1989 but contended that her property was not inherited by her two daughters.

6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the following main issues were framed :

(ii) Whether the suit lands are ancestral lands of plaintiffs and defendants?

(iv) Whether there has been any partition of the suit lands between plaintiffs and defendants?

(viii) When did Shivcharan Sahu die, in the year 1978 or in the year 1952?

7. The learned Trial Court answered all these issued in favour of the plaintiffs and decreed the suit on the following grounds :

Firstly, it has been admitted by the defendants that Banmali Sahu was a recorded tenant of the suit land and he had two sons namely Brajmohan Sahu and Shivcharan Sahu (Exhibit-3 series) are the certified copy of Khatiyan which shows that the land under Khata Nos. 156, 226, 225 were recorded in the name of Banmali Sahu which has been corroborated by oral evidence.

Secondly, in the written statement it has been admitted that there has not been any partition between both the parties.

Thirdly, on issue No. 8 regarding the question of death of Shivcharan Sahu in the year 1978 or in the year 1952, the documentary and oral evidence has supported the case of the plaintiff that Shivcharan Sahu died in the year 1978. It has been deposed by the plaintiffs that his father-in-law Shivcharan Sahu on 29.06.1975 had sold the land detailed in Schedule-B to his daughter Parwati Devi. Part of that land was also sold by Parwati Devi to different persons as detailed in Schedule-C. After the sale, land was duly mutated in her name and in that regard the correction slip and the revenue receipts have been adduced into evidence and marked as Exhibit-2, Exhibit-4 series.

Fourthly, Shivcharan Sahu died in the year 1978 after coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and thereby Parwati Devi and after