MARTHA Vs. HARILA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs (now their Lrs.) was admitted for hearing on 27/01/1998 by formulating the following three substantial question of law :shy;

(2.) The suit property, shown in Schedule 'A' appended with the plaint, situated at Village Amera, Tahsil Kusmi, District Sarguja was originally held by defendant No. 2 namely Harila. Plaintiff No. 1 claimed that she has purchased the suit property from Harila by registered sale deed dtd. 08/03/1976 (Ex. P/1) and thereafter came into possession of the said suit property, whereas original defendant No. 1 namely Deeya Mahto claimed that he has purchased the suit property from Harila by unregistered sale deed dtd. 26/03/1957 (Ex. D/2).

(3.) It is further case of the plaintiffs that they were dispossessed from the suit property by defendant No. 1 - Deeya Mahto pursuant to which proceedings under Sec. 145 of CrPC was initiated in which by order dtd. 28/01/1979, the Sub-divisional Magistrate declared the possession of defendant No. 1 over the suit property and the revision preferred by the plaintiffs against that order was also dismissed which necessitated for the filing of the suit by the two plaintiffs for declaration of title and possession stating inter alia that since defendant No. 2 namely Harila was a member of aboriginal tribe ('Nageshiya' by caste), he could not have alienated the suit property in favour of defendant No. 1 by unregistered sale deed dtd. 26/03/1957 (Ex. D/2) and the transaction is hit by Sec. 170-B of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, as such, they are entitled for decree for declaration of title and possession over the suit property.