A suit for mere declaration without possession is not maintainable, and the limitation for correction of entry in the record of right under the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act is 12 months.

JUDGMENT :

By the Court:- Heard the parties.

2. This second appeal has been preferred under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 19.03.2019 passed by the learned District Judge-VI, Gumla in Title Appeal No. 22 of 2010 whereby and where under, by the said judgment of concurrence, the learned first appellate court upheld the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court being the court of learned Munsif, Gumla in Title Suit No.37 of 2007 dated 26.10.2010 by which the learned trial court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs, filed with a prayer for declaration of their right, title and interest over the suit land, on contest.

3. The case of the plaintiffs in brief is that the suit land was recorded in the name of Khedan Baiga, Madhwa Baiga both sons of Chhandu Baiga and Surju Baiga in the R.S. record of right as kaimi and the recorded tenant have also other raiyat and Bhuinhari land in the village- Anjan and Bhuinhari Pahanai land recorded in hereditary. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that Khedan Baiga died leaving behind his only son Harku Baiga who died leaving behind his two sons Bhikhu Baiga- the plaintiff and Ram Sundar Baiga. Ram Sundar Baiga died leaving behind his two sons Bandhan Baiga and Chandan Baiga who are pro-forma defendant nos.3 and 4. The second recorded tenant Madhaba Baiga died leaving behind his two sons Nandu Baiga and Lohra Baiga. Lohra Baiga died issueless. Nandu Baiga died leaving behind his two sons Aghnu Baiga and Ropa Baiga. Ropa Baiga died leaving behind his only son Budheswar Baiga and the recorded tenant Surju Baiga died without any male issue. The plaintiffs further pleaded that after death of Surju Baiga, the share of his property devolved upon and inherited by the plaintiffs and proforma defendants according to Munda custom and according to which, the unmarried daughter and widows has only right of maintenance from the property of father and husband. The plaintiffs further pleaded that in the record of right, caste of the recorded tenant has been wrongly recorded as Oraon instead of Khewats. It is further the case of the plaintiffs that the recorded tenant kept Situ Oraon- the grandfather of the defendant no.1 and father of Etwa Oraon along with their family as Dhangar for cultivation work. After revisional survey record of right, Situ Oraon continued to live with the family of the recorded tenant even after the death of recorded tenant. Etwa Oraon- the son of Situ Oraon also helped in cultivation work like his father. Etwa Oraon along with two sons being defendant nos.1 and 2 were allowed to continue to live along with his family of recorded tenant by the plaintiffs and the pro-forma defendants. In the survey settlement before filing of the suit, Banda parcha was prepared in the name of original plaintiff- Bhikhu Baiga and Ram Sundar Baiga but the survey authorities have wrongly entered the name of Etwa Baiga son of Situ Baiga in connivance with Etwa Baiga without the knowledge of the heirs of the recorded tenant. It is further the case of the plaintiffs that Etwa Baiga who is the father of the defendant no.1 and 2 like his father Situ Baiga were stranger to the family of the plaintiffs. Hence, plaintiffs asserted that the entry made in the Banda Parcha to the extent of mentioning the name of Etwa Oraon is erroneous and right, title and interest do not accrue to the defendant nos. 1 and 2. As the defendant nos.1 and 2 claimed the suit land to be their own, the plaintiffs filed the said suit.

4. The defendant no.1- Chamra Oraon and defendant no.4- Chhandan Baiga did not file the written statement and the suit proceeded ex-parte against them.

5. The defendant nos.5 and 6 were debarred from filing the written statement.

6. The defendant no.2-Chamru Baiga and defendant no.3- Bandhan Baiga contested the suit by filing joint written statement. They in their joint written statement challenged the maintainability of the suit on various technical ground