The presumption of correctness of the entries in the record of rights under Section 84(3) of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 is rebuttable and the burden of proof lies on the party challenging the correctness of the entries.

1. This First Appeal arises out of a judgment and decree dated 29-11-1984 passed by Shri Ram Nath, Subordinate Judge, Palamau in Partition Suit No. 116 of 1982 whereby and whereunder the said learned Court decreed the plaintiffs-respondents suit. According to the plaintiffs-respondents, the lands appertaining to Khata No.10 were the ancestral property of the parties which originally belonged to Nira Mahto.

2. According to the plaintiffs, Nira Mahto had only two sons namely Pati Mahto and Raman Mahto. Allegedly, after the death of Nira Mahto, Pati Mahto was the Karta and as such at the time of preparation of Survey Settlement Record of rights, Lila Mahto was a minor and taking advantage of the said fact, Pati Mahto got his share recorded in the Survey Record of Rights as 3/4th in the said properties, whereas the share of Lila Mahto was recorded as 1/4th therein. The plaintiff is the son of Raman Mahto.

3. The defendants are heirs of the aforementioned Pati Mahto. The genealogical table will depict the relationship of the parties which is as follows :

4. According to the plaintiff, as the plaintiff was minor, no steps could be taken by him for correction of the Record of Rights. The plaintiff further asserted that the suit lands are joint and there had been no partition by metes and bounds. The plaintiff further asserted that some improvements have been made over the suit lands.

5. In the aforementioned case, a written statement has been filed wherein, inter alia it was contended that the entries made in the Survey Settlement Record of Rights is correct. The defendants further took the usual pleas of limitation, estoppel, waiver and acquiescence.

6. The defendants further asserted that Nira Mahto had three sons namely Dhun Mahto, Pati Mahto and Raman Mahto. It has further been alleged that Nira Mahto died prior to the Cadestral Survey Settlement Operation and upon his death, all the three sons separated and they separately acquired landed property. The defendants further asserted that the defendant Nos. 8, 4, 6 and 7 had no concern with the suit lands.

7. With regard to the lands under Khata No. 10 which is the subject matter of the aforementioned suit, it was alleged that the said properties were not the ancestral properties but the same were acquired by Pati Mahto and Raman Mahto by virtue of a settlement taken from the then Landlord and in respect of the said lands also, there had been a partition in accordance with the share of the parties. The defendants further contended that, in this view of the matter. Pati Mahto acquired 3/4th and Raman Mahto 1/4th share. It has further been asserted by the defendants that all the lands were not partitioned by metes and bounds. It was also asserted that Raman Mahto died before cadestral Survey and as such, therein the plaintiffs 1/4th interest has been recorded.

8. The said defendants further asserted that the family was never joint as they have/had separate bari land and thus, there is no unity of title and unity of possession. According to the defendants, they were ready and willing to partition the suit lands according to the share recorded in the record of rights but the plaintiff was not ready to partition the suit properties.

9. Upon the aforementioned pleadings of the parties, the learned court below framed the following issues: -

"1. Is the suit maintainable as framed? 2. Has plaintiff cause of action for the suit? 3. Is there unity of title and unity of possession over the suit land between the parties? 4. Whether the suit lands are self-acquired property of the ancestor of defendants? 5. Is the suit barred by law of limitation? 6. To what other relief or reliefs, if any, is plaintiff entitled?"

10. The learned Court below took up issue Nos. 3 and 4 together and held that there is nothing to show that there had been any partition by and between Raman Mahto and Pati Mahto and in view of presumption in law that a Hindu family continue to be joint, come to a conclusion tha