Concurrent findings of facts and the limited scope of second appellate jurisdiction are crucial in establishing title and possession in land disputes.

S.K.Katriar, J.

1. The defendants are the appellants against a judgment of affirmance. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18.9.2000, passed by the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Motihari, in title a Appeal No. 113/1989 Mahesh Ram and Ors. V/s. Ganga Rai and Ors., whereby he has affirmed the judgment and decree dated 25.4.89, passed by the learned Additional Munsif, Sikarhana, in title Suit No. 7/76 of 1885/1988 Ganga Rai V/s. Dewan Ram and Ors.. The suit was decreed which has been affirmed in appeal. Hence this appeal at the instance of the defendants. We shall go by the description of the parties occurring in the plaint.

2. The case of the plaintiffs-respondents in brief is that the suit land measuring 5 1/2 decimals, appertaining to khata No. 3, plot No. 270, stood recorded as Gairmazarua Malik land in RS Record of rights. The ancestors of one Sheo Raj Ram remained in possession till his life and after his death, his descendants came in possession and remained in possession openly to the knowledge of all including the then landlord. The title of Sheo Raj Ram over the suit land was perfected by lapse of time. Since Sheo Raj Ram was in possession of the suit land at the time of vesting of zamindari, he remained in possession in view of the provisions of Bihar Land Reforms Act. Rent was fixed in favour of Sheo Raj Ram in the year 1980-81.

2.1 The further case of the plaintiff is that Sheo Raj Ram then exchanged the suit land with the plaintiff by registered deed of exchange dated 10.10.83, whereafter the plaintiffs came in possession of the suit land and is continuing over the same and , in his turn, the plaintiff put Sheo Raj Ram in possession of his own land. The plaintiff-respondent claims title and possession by virtue of the registered deed of exchange.

2.2 The plaintiff sought relief that his title over the suit land be declared and his possession be confirmed and the defendants-appellants be restrained permanently from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land.

3. The case of the defendants (appellants) is that Sheo Raj Ram was never in possession of the suit. The story of rent-fixation in favour of Sheo Raj Ram is imaginary and if any such paper is filed for the same, the same would be forged and fabricated one. There is demarcating ridge between the lands of the plaintiff and the suit lands.

3.1 The further case of the defendants is that the suit plot is Gairmazarua Malik land which is adjacent to their house and so their ancestors extended their house over it and the rest portion is being used as Kalawari. The defendants, ancestors are coming in possession of the same and, after their death, these defendant are in possession of the same.

3.2 it is further pleaded that in course of Government drive--"Home for Homeless" and the "Land for Landless", the Government fixed rent by a letter No. 2199 dt. 18.6.74 in favour of defendants-appellants over 8 decimals of plot No. 270 of khata No. 3. The defendants are paying rent and getting rent-receipts.

4. The learned trial Court framed the following issues for determination :

(I) Whether the suit as framed is maintable?

(II) Whether the plaintiff has got cause of action or right to sue? .

(III) Whether the plaintiff has got title over the suit land?

(IV) Whether the plaintiff has got possession over the suit land?

(V) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get permanent injunction?

5. The learned trial Court found that the lands belonging to the defendants is different from that the suit land. It was further found that the plaintiff had acquired the suit land from Shiv Raj Ram by means of a registered deed of exchange and has perfect title to the same. The trial Court further held that the defendants have failed to prove their possession over the suit land and the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land.

6. The defendants appealed which has been dismissed by the impugned judgment, the learned Court of appeal