Kanhaiya Singh, J.

1. Second Appeal 462 of 1951 came up before a Division Bench of this Court from a decision of the 1st Additional Subordinate Judge, Muzaffarpur, dated 10th January. 1951. The main orgument be-fore the Bench was that there is a conflict between the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in M. A. Rauf V/s. Bodhi Singh, AIR 1950 Pat 484 (A) and a subsequent decision of another Division Bench in Dhani Jha V/s. Mt. Dharohari Kuer, 1955 B L J R 202 (B). In the course of argument reference was made to certain other decisions of the Privy Council and this Court, and the learned Judges before whom the appeal came considered that in view of the conflict of decisions, the case required consideration by a larger Bench and, therefore, referred the case to a Full Bench for determination.

2. Subsequently, Second Appeal 386 of 1951 from a decision of the 1st Additional District Judge, Muzaffarpur, dated 9th January 1951, came up before the said Division Bench, and the point involved was almost the same. The learned Judges, therefore, referred this case also to a Full Bench for disposal along with Second Appeal 462 of 1951. These two appeals have been accordingly consolidated and heard analogously, and this judgment will govern both.

3. The important question for consideration on which rests the decision of these two appeals is which of the two conflicting decisions in the cases of M. A. Rauf (A) and Dhani Jha (B) referred to above, is correct.

4. I shall first take up Second Appeal 462 of 1951. The dispute relates to survey plot No. 2429 which has an area of 14 dhurs. This forms part of Khata No. 761 appertaining to Khewat No. 53 in village Khanaur, tauzi No. 14390. The plaintiffs are the sixteen annas landlords of this Khewat. Khata No. 761 is a ghairmazrua Malik khata and has been recorded in their names. During the survey and Settlement operation this plot contained a house, and in the Remarks column of Khata No. 761 against this plot the possession of Nathuui Khewat over this house has been noted. It appears that Musammat Sukhia, the widow of Rabia Kurmi, resides in a hut on this plot. The plaintiffs case was that the house situate on the disputed plot No. 2429 as shown in the survey record-of-rights was in fact their cowshed, and Nathunj Kewat was their labourer, and since at the time of the survey he was living in the house to look alter the cattle, his possession was noted in the Khatian. Shortly after the survey and settlement he died issueless, and since after his death the plaintiffs have been in exclusive possession of this plot, and it is said that a part of the disputed land is utilised for tethering cattle and the remaining portion is under cultivation and vegetables are grown. The further case of the plaintiffs is that four years prior to the institution of the suit the defendants first party (defendants 1 to 3) demolished their old house which was just west to the disputed plot and constructed a new house in its stead, and without the permission of the plaintiffs dug a drain through the disputed land in order to discharge the water of their house eastwards. The plaintiffs protested and resisted the opening of the drain, but on the defendants agreeing to pay them compensation for opening a drain on the suit land, they raised no further objection. The defendants, however, defaulted in the payment of the compensation despite repeated demands. On the contrary, they dispossessed the plaintiffs and took forcible possession of the disputed plot, without any right, in Baisakh 1354 fasli (corresponding to May 1947) and inducted Musammat Sukhia (defendant 4) on the plaintiffs hut which existed on their disputed plot and uprooted the vegetables grown by the plaintiffs. When, on demand, they refused to vacated the disputed land the plaintiffs instituted the present suit for ejectment and possession.

5. The defendants resisted the suit and denied the story of possession and dispossession. Their defence in the