JUDGMENT :

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants.

2. No one turns up on behalf of the respondents; hence, this appeal is heard and disposed of ex-parte against the respondents.

3. This Second Appeal, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 28.05.2012 passed by learned Principal District Judge, Sahibganj in Title Appeal No.41 of 2009 whereby and where under by the judgment of concurrence, the learned Principal District Judge, Sahibganj dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment and decree passed by the trial court being the court of Subordinate Judge-III, Sahibganj in Title Suit No.11 of 2007 dated 30.06.2009.

4. The case of the plaintiffs in brief is that the plaintiffs filed the Title Suit No.11 of 2007 with a prayer for declaration of their right, title, interest and possession over the schedule-A property and also for their confirmation of their possession over the suit property and if it is found that plaintiffs have been forcibly dispossessed then a decree for restoration of possession through thee machinery of court be passed. The plaintiffs also made a prayer that the defendant first party be permanently injuncted not to disturb the right, title and interest or possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property and cost of the suit with other equitable relief. The plaintiffs pleaded that the plaintiffs and the defendants second party as well as the proforma defendants are related to the recorded tenant of the suit namely Most. Chanchaliya Devi. The plaintiffs further pleaded that the defendant first party are no way related to the recorded tenant and they have no right, title and interest to occupy the suit land which is a non-transferrable land in terms of Section 20 of Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act, 1949. The plaintiffs further pleaded that in or about May, 2003, the defendant first party tried to trespass upon the suit property and tried to damage the crops of the plaintiffs planted thereon. The plaintiff No.1 approached the S.D.O., Sahibganj for eviction of the defendant first party but the said petition was dismissed and the appeal filed in the matter was pending before the Deputy Collector, Sahibganj vide Rev. Misc. Appeal No.11 of 2005, at the time of filing of the suit. It is further the case of the plaintiffs that Most. Chanchaliya Devi died more than 50 years before filing of the suit and the daughter or any of the legal heirs of Most. Chanchaliya Devi did not come to perform her last rites (Shradh Ceremony) to the village. The plaintiffs then pleaded that the heirs or daughters of Most. Chanchaliya Devi had neither any interest over the suit land nor they owned or possessed the suit property. The father of the plaintiffs namely Ganeshi Mandal along with Faudari Mandal were present in the last rites (Shradh) of Most. Chanchaliya Devi. Faudari Mandal relinquished his share over the suit property in presence of the village people and Ganeshi Mandal observed the last rites (Shradh) of Most. Chanchaliya Devi and thereafter owned and possessed and cultivated the entire suit property to the exclusion of all other relations and heirs, if any, of Most. Chanchaliya Devi. The father of the plaintiffs also used to pay rent of the suit property to the Pradhan of the village. The plaintiff No.1 also paid rent of the entire suit property to the village Pradhan. None of the defendants ever objected the ownership, possession of Ganeshi Mandal or plaintiff No.1 over the suit property. The plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 are the brother and son of pre-deceased sister of plaintiff No.1. The defendant second party or the proforma defendants are not the legal heirs of Most. Chanchaliya Devi and they have no legal right, title, ownership or possession over the suit property. The plaintiffs further pleaded that in the last survey record before filing of the suit the name of the father of the defendant second party Gena Mandal has been surreptitiously mentioned but as the s