1. Heard learned counsel for appellants Mr. A.K. Sahani as well as learned counsel for the respondent appearing for the State Mr. Kaushal Kishore Mishra.

2. Instant second appeal has been preferred against judgment and decree dated 12.02.2004 (decree signed on 27.02.2004), passed by learned District Judge, Jamtara in Title (Eviction) Appeal No.2 of 2002 reversing the judgment and decree dated 09.10.2002 (decree signed on 18.11.2002), passed by learned Sub-Judge III, Jamtara in Eviction Suit No. 01 of 1994, 182 of 2002, whereby and whereunder, the suit filed by the plaintiff / respondent has been decreed by the first appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 12.02.2004 by setting aside the judgment of dismissal of suit passed by the trial court in title suit no. 01 of 1994 / 182 of 2002 dated 09.10.2002.

3. This appeal admitted for hearing vide order dated 24.11.2004 on following substantial question of law: -
(i) Whether the lower appellate court has misconstrued and misinterpreted the provisions of law in setting aside and reversing the findings of the trial court?"

4. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal in a narrow campus is that the plaintiff (respondent herein) has instituted the suit against the defendants / appellants vide Eviction suit no.01 of 1994/182 of 2002 for following reliefs: -
(i) Ejectment of defendants (appellants herein) from the suit premises and house, and delivery of possession to the plaintiff,
(ii) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendants / appellants from using and occupying the suit premises;
(iii) Costs of the suit and,
(iv) Such other relief or reliefs the plaintiff is entitled to inequality and justice,

5. The case of the plaintiff is that he obtained "Basouri Settlement" of land over which the suit house was situated, constructed by the previous owner (Panchu Seikh). The plaintiff shortly after last survey settlement and constructed a hut thereon and established cattle shed (Khatal) there and started his business. Thereafter around 1978, the plaintiff constructed a partly pucca house and a pucca well over the vacant land by obtaining permission from the Member of Notified Area Committee and in this manner it was registered in the record of Notified Area Committee in the name of plaintiff. He was paying taxes regularly. It is further alleged that the defendants are the sons of plaintiff's brother who previously used to live at their village Gogri and the plaintiff brought them to Mihijam on their request, some 10 years ago of filing of this suit and also engaged them in the business of dairy. The plaintiff also constructed another partly pucca house towards the eastern side of the suit house and started living there. Since the suit house was lying vacant, hence, upon request by his nephews / defendants, the plaintiff graciously allowed them and granted license to occupy the suit house for their temporary accommodation who in turn agreed to quit and vacate the premises whenever called upon by the plaintiff. It is further alleged that when the children of the plaintiff grown up, he asked the defendants to vacate the suit premises, but they refused on one pretext or another and ultimately on or about 15.10.1992, the plaintiff revoked the license granted in favour of the defendants and demanded possession of the land on 01.03.1993 and upon refusal to vacate the suit premises, this suit was instituted.

6. The defendants / appellants had appeared and filed their written statement stating inter - alia by denying the right title interest and possession of the plaintiff and also challenging the settlement of Jamabandi land from one of the owner Panchu Sheikh contrary to the provision of Santhal Parganas Tenancy Act, 1949. The specific case of the defendants was that about 04 decimals of lands in plot no. 2779 of Mouza - Mihijam was obtained in the name of the plaintiff who was 'Karta' of the family from the owner of the aforesaid plot from the joint fund of the parties and a house was joint