The appellate court upheld the validity of Nadabi deeds, ruling they conferred title and the suit was barred by limitation due to prior knowledge of the deeds by the plaintiffs.

JUDGMENT :

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.

1. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 15.12.2016 (Decree signed on 22.12.2016) passed by the learned District Judge - XVII, Dhanbad in Title Appeal No. 108 of 2015 whereby the appeal has been allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court has been set aside. The judgment and decree by the Trial Court dated 30.09.2015 (Decree signed on 16.10.2015), has been passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dhanbad in Title Suit No.01 of 2003, whereby the suit was partly allowed and decreed on contest.

2. This second appeal was admitted vide order dated 12.04.2018 on the following substantial questions of law:

“A. Whether learned appellate court while reversing trial court judgment committed serious error of law as it failed to construe true purport of “Nadabi” deed no.307 and 310 dated 05.01.72 (Ext.2 & 2/1), an ab initio void documents were executed without consideration, never acted upon & did not confer any title upon Jugal Mahto?

B. Whether learned appellate court while reversing the trial court judgment erred in law in holding that suit is barred by law of limitation, estoppels, acquiescence?”

3. The suit was filed seeking a declaration that the Nadabi deeds No.307 dated 5-1-1972 and No.310 dated 5-1-1972 are null and void, sham transaction, never acted upon and be delivered cancelled up. A further prayer was made to seek a decree for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the Plaintiffs and alternatively for a decree of possession if the plaintiffs are dis-possessed during the pendency of the suit.

Arguments of the appellants (plaintiffs)

4. It has been submitted that as per the Plaint, the land was possessed by one Prayag Mahato, who died leaving his widow Gendia Mahatain and Prayag Mahato had earlier gifted the property in favour of Gendia Mahatain vide Gift Deed No.7205 of 1962; Gendia Mahtain sold a portion of the land to Bhutia Mahtain, wife of Pran Mahato on 30.08.1971 vide registered Sale Deed (Exhibit-1) and put Bhutia Mahtain in possession; Gendia Mahtain also sold remaining land to Pran Mahato, the father of the plaintiffs, on 30.08.1971, registered Sale Deed (Exhibit-1/A). Thus, Bhutia Mahtain and Pran Mahato possessed the land mentioned in the Schedule to the Plaint.

5. On 15.03.2002 the plaintiffs came to know that the defendants had purchased the suit land from one Jugal Mahato, in whose favour two registered Nadabi deeds (relinquishment deeds) both dated 05.01.1972 were executed by Gendia Mahtain and Pran Mahato in favour of Jugal Mahato. The specific case of the plaintiffs was that the Nadabi deeds were not acted upon. However, Jugal Mahto sold and transferred these lands to the defendants vide registered sale deed dated 27.01.1986, who got their name mutated. Further case of the plaintiffs was that Nadabi deeds were without consideration, and therefore Jugal Mahto, did not acquire any right, title and interest over the lands covered by both the Nadabi deeds and a prayer was made to declare that both the Nadabi deeds were null and void.

6. A reference was also made to large number of proceedings, including proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C, being M.P. Case No.1090 of 1986, drawn at the instance of father of the plaintiffs Pran Mahto, which was converted into a proceeding under Section 145 and was dropped on 08.08.1988. A reference was also made to appeal filed by Pran Mahato under Section 89 of Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 which was dismissed on 27.09.1999. A reference was also made to a writ petition filed in the year 2000 by Prem Kumar Mahato, Plaintiff No. 1.

7. The defendants appeared and stated that the suit was barred by the law of limitation and was also against other provisions of law. The Nadabi deeds were duly executed on 05.01.1972 and the plaintiffs had no cause of action and the suit was filed after lapse of 30 years. It was also the