The sale of Mundari Khunt Kattidari land is void under Section 240 of the C.N.T. Act, prohibiting such transfers, impacting title and possession rights.

JUDGMENT :

PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard Mr. K.K. Ambastha, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Ayush Aditya, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The instant second appeal has been preferred by the appellants, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 11.10.2004 (decree signed on 19.10.2004) passed by learned 1st Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Title Appeal No. 57 of 2000, whereby and whereunder, the appeal has been dismissed and the judgment dated 29.09.2000 (decree signed on 10.11.2000) passed by learned Additional Munsif, Khunti in Title Suit No. 09/1995 has been upheld and confirmed.

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. The Title Suit No. 9 of 1995 was instituted by respondents / plaintiffs for declaration of their right, title, interest and possession over the suit land along with confirmation of possession. It is alleged that both parties are members of Munda Scheduled Tribe and guided by their own usage and customs in the matter of succession and inheritance, whereby the females are excluded from inheritance. It is further alleged that plaintiffs and proforma defendant no. 6 are settled Raiyat, whereas defendants are Mundari Khunt Kattidari landlords of the same village, who realize the rent from Khunt Kattidari Tenants. The suit schedule lands were recorded in the revisional survey in the name of one Bigal Singh Munda, who out of legal necessity sold part of the land (suit schedule land) to Mohan Munda and Pushkar Munda through registered sale deed dated 16.05.1943. The plaintiff nos. 1 to 3 are the heirs of Mohan Munda and plaintiff no. 4 and proforma defendant no. 6 are the heirs of Pushkar Munda. It is further alleged that the defendants, being the landlords are claiming the lands as their own and creating disturbances, which gave rise to cause of action for the present suit.

4. On the other hand, the defendants appeared and contested the suit by filing joint written statement and pleaded that the widow of recorded raiyat Bigal Singh Munda surrendered the suit land to the landlords on 11.08.1947, who accepted the same. However, the proforma defendant no. 6, being legal heirs of one of the purchasers instituted a case under Section 71(A) of the C.N.T. Act, but lost the same up to the appeal. Hence, the suit is not maintainable and also barred by law of limitation.

5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were settled by the learned trial court:-

(i) Is the suit maintainable in its present form?

(ii) Has the plaintiffs any cause of action for the suit?

(iii) Is the suit barred by law of limitation and adverse possession?

(iv) Have the plaintiffs any right, title and interest over the suit land?

(v) Have the defendants any right, title and interest over the suit land?

(vi) Are the plaintiffs entitled for any relief or reliefs?

6. The learned trial court decided the core Issue Nos. (iv) & (v) taking together for adjudication and recorded findings that the sale deed executed in 1943 by the recorded raiyat Bigal Singh Munda is genuine and witnesses examined by the plaintiffs have also supported the factum of possession over the suit land of the plaintiffs since long. The question of surrender after execution of sale deed by the recorded raiyat by his own wife in favour of landlords does not arise. Accordingly, the learned trial court decreed the suit on contest with cost. The defendants preferred the first appeal i.e. Title Appeal No. 57 of 2000. On the basis of points of argument raised on behalf of appellant / defendants, the first appellate court has formulated