Mahapatra, J.

1. In this appeal by the two plaintiffs, the correctness of a genealogy, according to which the plaintiffs claimed true to the properties mentioned in the two Schedules A and B given in the plaint and asked for recovery of possession of the same with mesne profits, is in question.

2. One Siaram Tewarj had three sons Padaratn, Ramchandar and Gangaram. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 belong to the last branch, defendants 1 and 2 to the branch of Padarath and the other defendants, defendants 3 to 20 being to Ram Chandars line. The plaintiffs genealogy as given in the plaint and reproduced in the judgment may be briefly indicated to show the nature of contest between the parries. Padarath Tewari had three sons Ramratan, Nauratan and Ramcharitar. They became separate in status between 1909 and 1911. The survey settlement operations were completed in the said villages by 1912. Ramratan had two sons Rajbhukhan and Roshan. Rajbhukhan died in 1946 and Roshan had died in 1928-29 and defendant No. 1, Manbirta was his widow. Nauratan had a son Lawat who died in 1916. Nauratan died in 1920. Ramcharitar died issueless in 1954. Defendant No. 2, Prema was the widow of Lawat. Plaintiffs as