JUDGMENT :

Heard the parties.

2. This Second Appeal, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 05.05.2008 passed by learned District Judge, Jamtara in Title Appeal No.02 of 2008 whereby and where under the learned First Appellate Court in the judgment of concurrence, has dismissed the appeal and decreed the suit of the plaintiffs and upheld the judgment and decree passed by the trial court.

3. The case of the plaintiffs in brief is that the suit land used to be jointly recorded in the names of Bishni Mondalain and Ojhala Mondalain during the last survey settlement before filing of the suit. The father of the plaintiff Dahru Mondal and his uncle Beni Mondal obtained the disputed suit land from the said Bishni Mondalain and Ojhala Mondalain by way of a private exchange on or about 29.09.1932 and the father and uncle of the plaintiff gave their portion of plot No.1398 of Mouza Karmatar to the aforesaid ladies in exchange. In pursuance to the said mutual exchange, a private paper of exchange was drawn up and reduced into writing by the parties in presence of the villagers on 29.09.1932. The father and uncle of the plaintiff immediately after the exchange entered into the possession of the suit land in the year 1932 while the said two ladies entered into the possession over the exchanged land bearing plot No.1398. Subsequently, the father and uncle of the plaintiff reclaimed the said exchanged land and converted the same to a Dhani (paddy) land at heavy cost. On the death of Dahru Mondal and Beni Mondal, the plaintiff being the only daughter of Dahru Mondal and sole heir and successor succeeded to all the properties including the suit property and entered into the peaceful cultivating possession thereof. The uncle of the plaintiff namely Beni Mondal and his wife died leaving no issues. The plaintiff has been in actual cultivating possession over the suit land by growing paddy crops thereon and enjoying the produce of the same. The plaintiff has also got her name mutated in respect of the suit land vide Mutation Case No.123/1976-77 in the court of Circle Officer, Jamtara vide order dated 31.03.1977. The defendants have no concern with the suit land and during the cultivation in the year 1999, while the sons of the plaintiff went to the suit land for transplantation, the defendants being influential persons threatened to assault and the son of the plaintiff filed a case upon which a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. was registered and the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jamtara directed the parties to seek remedy in the Civil Court and on 04.12.2000 also, the defendant created trouble in peaceful cultivation. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for:-

(1) adjudication of right, title and interest of the plaintiff over the suit properties against the defendants,

(2) confirmation of possession or in alternative recovery of possession over the suit properties through process of court,

(3) order of injunction restraining the defendants not to disturb the possession of the plaintiff in future

(4) cost of the suit,

(5) other relief or reliefs.

4. In their written statement, the defendants challenged the maintainability of the suit on various technical grounds. They denied the contention of exchange of lands claimed by the plaintiff and claimed that the Memorandum of Exchange is a forged document and they also denied the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. However, they admitted the mutation of the land in the name of the plaintiff but claimed that the same has been done on the basis of the forged Memorandum of Exchange. The defendants claimed that they are possessing the land and cultivating the land and growing the paddy crops.

5. On the basis of rival pleadings of the parties, learned trial court framed the four issues which read as under:-

(i) Is the suit maintainable in law?

(ii) Has the plaintiff valid cause of action for the suit?

(iii) Whether the plaintiff has got valid titl