Lakshmikanta Jha, J.

1. First Appeal No. 31 of 1947 arises out of Title Suit No. 62 of 1944 in which the plaintiffs seek recovery of 9.34 acres of land as 7 annas 13 gandas and odd from co-sharer landlords. First Appeal No. 278 of 1948 arises out of Title Suit No. 61 of 1944 in which the plaintiffs seek recovery of 5.625 acres of land as 4 annas 10 gandas and odd co-sharer landlords. First Appeal No. 279 of 1948 arises out of Title Suit No. 188 of 1945 in which the plaintiffs seek recovery of 4,375 acres of land as 3 annas 10 gandas and odd co-sharer landlords. Thus the total area in dispute in the three suits is a little less than 20 acres, and the plaintiffs in the three suits thereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs) seek recovery of possession of it from the defendants first party in each suit thereinafter referred to as the defendants) as the next reversioners of one Ramdhan Singh to whom the land in dispute originally belonged.

2. Ramdhan Singh died childless sometime in 1872, leaving behind two widows, Manrup Kuer and Pari Kuer. On his death the widows came in possession of his estate. Manrup Kuer died in 1923 and Pari Kuer in 1933. On the death of the latter succession opened and a dispute cropped up between two sets of claimants.

The plaintiffs set up their reversionary right as gotias, whereas two other persons, Gaya Prasad Singh and Phalgu Prasad Singh, claimed preferential right as Ramdhans daughters sons and set up a deed of surrender in their own favour executed by Pari Kuer. There were litigations between these two sets of rival claimants in the criminal Court under Sec.145, Code of Criminal Procedure, for possession of some land and in the revenue Court for mutation of names in respect of the zamindari property. In those cases Gaya and Phalgu succeed. The plaintiffs had, therefore, to institute title suits against them for declaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of the entire heritage. Those suits were tried analogously and were decreed on the 23rd June, 1937, and the plaintiffs recovered possession of the properties through Court on the 28th September, 1937 and the 6th October, 1937.

3. The land in dispute, which forms part of the estate of Ramdhan and is situated in what is known as Barhaiya Tal, was recorded as bakasht in 1910 in the finally published record-of-rights of the cadastral survey. It appears that at about the time when the plaintiffs got delivery of possession a Kisan movement was started in respect of the Tal land in Barhaiya and other neighbouring mauzas. The plaintiffs case is that the defendants, taking advantage of the agrarian movement, falsely set up tenancy right in the lands in dispute under an oral settlement from Ramdhans widows, alleged to have Deen made by them in the year 1328 Fasli (1921). A proceeding under Sec.144, Code of Criminal Procedure, was started on the 4th November, 1937, with respect to 4.89 acres of land but it was dropped on the 3rd January, 1938 (vide exhibit E).

4. The Kisan movement created a serious agrarian trouble. In order to put a stop to the movement, an awara committee was appointed by the District Magistrate of Monghyr for settlement of the disputes between the zammdars and the kisans with respect to the bakasht land in Barhaiya Tal and other neighbouring places. And, according to the plaintiffs, 15.11 acres of land mentioned in schedule A 1 to the plaint, which is part of the land in dispute, were wrongly given to Bankey Singh (defendant No. 5) under the award of the arbitrators, although they had no semblance of title or possession over the said land, and notwithstanding the award, they continued in possession, but towards the end of the year 1940 Bankey Singh started interfering with their possession with respect to 4.89 acres of land, and a proceeding under Sec.145, Code of Criminal Procedure, was started between them which terminated in favour of the said Bankey Singh. The allegation of the plaintiffs is that they were comp