Shib Chandra Prasad, J.

1. The plaintiffs have appealed against the judgment of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Dhanbad, confirming the decision of the Additional Munsif of the same place in a suit filed by them for declaration of title to and recovery of possession of the lands mentioned in schedule A of the plaint and for declaration of title and confirmation of possession in respect of the lands mentioned in Schedule B of the plaint. There was also a prayer for injunction against the defendants.

2. The lands originally belonged to one Chha-tradhari Pandey. He left two sons Indranarain Pandey and Lalmohan Pandey. Lalmohan died in 1944 leaving behind his widow, Sabitri. It has been alleged by the plaintiffs that there had been a partition between Indranarain and Lalmohaa, whereby the lands in dispute were allotted to Lalmohan so that after his death his widow Sabitri came in possession of these lands and in 1950 executed a kebala in favour of plaintiff no. 1 in respect of these lands for legal necessity. The other plantiffs are members of the family of plaintiff No. 1. It was alleged by the defendants that they had taken settlement of a portion of plot No. 28, one of the