JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

1. Heard Mr. Abhilash Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants and P.R. Rochan, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This second appeal has been filed being aggrieved and dissatisfied with judgment dated 05.02.1998 and decree dated 12.02.1998 passed by the First Additional District Judge, Gumla in Title Appeal No. 66/93 allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment dated 12.08.1993 and a decree dated 25.08.1993 passed by the learned Additional Munsif, Gumla in Title Suit no. 41 of 1991.

3. The Title Suit No. 41 of 1991 was instituted by the plaintiffs for declaration of their title over the suit land described in Schedule B of the plaint alongwith mesne profit and damaged amounting to Rs. 1600/- with interest. The Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs against defendant nos. 1 and 2. On contest the suit was decreed vide judgment dated 12.08.1993 and decree dated 25.08.1993 with cost and the plaintiffs were declared to have valid claim of title and possession over the suit land described in Schedule B of the plaint. Aggrieved with that the defendants filed Title Appeal No. 66 of 1993 which was decided on 05.02.1998 and the said appeal was allowed and the judgment of the learned trial court was reversed. Aggrieved with that the present second appeal has been preferred.

4. The case of the plaintiffs in short is that R.S. Khata No. 87 and 90 with an area of 25.83 acres stood recorded in the name of Dalay and Fagu Oraon which was partitioned between the females descendants of the two recorded tenant through a registered deed of partition but the suit land falling under Khata No. 88 and 89 with a total area of 3.37 acres recorded in the name of same Dalay and Fagu Oraon could not be included in that registered deed of Partition. It was pleaded that Dalay Oraon died leaving behind his widow and four daughter Salmi, Luisa, Maghi and Mangra and no son, so he kept Mangra Oraon as ghardamad for his daughter Luisa and married accordingly. Mangra also died leaving behind his son Fagu plaintiff no. 3. Likewise recorded tenant Fagu second son of Mangra Oraon the husband of Pairo Orain was also sonless having four daughters namely, Teresa, Kipra, Boby and Pitro. This Fagu Oraon adopted Bani Oraon as ghardamad and married his daughter Boby Orain accordingly with him who are the plaintiff no. 1 and 2 here. So both the ghardamad acquired and inherited as sons the joint lands of the two recorded tenants Dalay and Fagu and came in possession on thereof. It was said that under misc. case no. 2/87-88 the name of Lohra Oraon and others the defendants was removed from the Revenue record by Circle Officer, Palkot on 31.08.1987. It was also said that there was a criminal case no. 118/88-95-91 for paddy harvesting brought by the plaintiff against the defendants from portion of suit land which ended in acquittal of the defendants through judgment dated 2.4.1991. The plaintiffs have got cause of action for the suit on 26.10.88 when the paddy harvested and on 2.4.1991 when the defendants were acquitted in that criminal case. The plaintiffs have given a genealogy to explain the relationship of plaintiffs with the recorded tenants which is mentioned in trial court judgment. The plaintiff has prayed for declaration of their title over the suit land described in Schedule B of the plaint alongwith mesne profit and damaged amounting to Rs. 1600/- with interest.

5. The case of defendants is that the suit is not maintainable and the same is hit by principle of waiver and acquiescence and the suit is also said to be barred by law of limitation adverse possession and the provisions of specific relief Act. The suit is also said to be under valued. The defendants have denied the alleged partition and said that the same is illegal, and void because under the Oraons custom the females are debarred from inheritance and succession. The widow and unmarried daughters are entitled for maintenance till death and marriage cost