The main legal point established in the judgment is that the plaintiff's suit was time-barred under Art. 113 of the Limitation Act, as the plaintiff had full knowledge about the revisional survey operation and the limitation period should be calculated from the date of final publication of the revisional survey khatian.

Syed Md.Mahfooz Alam, J.

1. This second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff-appellant against the judgment and decree dated 6.9.1989 passed by Sri Sitaram Choudhary, Sub Judge I, Rhabhua in Title Appeal No. 21 of 1989 reversing the judgment and decree dated 16.5.1989 passed by Sri B.R. Prasad, Additional Munsif, Bhabhua in Title Suit 131 of 1986/76 of 1988. By the said judgment, and decree, the learned Subordinate Judge allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.

2. Briefly stated, the case of the plaintiff-appellant is that the plaintiff filed a title suit bearing Title Suit No. 131 of 1986 / 76 of 1988 against State of Bihar and others for correction of revisional survey entry and for declaration of his right, title and interest and also for confirmation of possession over the suit land bearing C.S. Khata No. 185, C.S. Plot No. 551 measuring an area of 10 decimals corresponding to R.S. Khata No. 435 R.S. Plot No. 1090 / 2048 in the court of Munsif, Bhabhua. The appellant further prayed that if he is found dispossessed then in the alternative the relief for recovery of possession be granted and further prayed that the defendant second set (State of Bihar) be restrained to settle the suit land to anyone. Further case of the plaintiff-appellant is that the father of the appellant was ex-landlord and the suit land was Sahan in the cadestral survey. His father had given the suit land to his labourer Sheonandan Dusadh who was utilising the land from before the cadestral survey as such the suit land was recorded in his name in cadestral survey. The said Sheonandan Dusadh died issueless and thereafter the suit land came in khas possession of the father of the appellant. At the time of abolition of Zamindari the return of the suit land was filed in the name of the appellant as he was throughout in possession of the suit land without any interference. During revisional survey, the suit land was wrongly recorded in the name of State of Bihar but since this fact was not known to the appellant, he did not file any objection. The factum of wrong entry came to the knowledge of the appellant in 1986 and hence, after giving notice u/s. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 16.8.1986 he filed the suit. Respondents - first set, who were defendant Nos. 1 to 3, filed their joint written statement and denied the claims made by the appellant.

3. According to the written statement of defendant first set, the suit, as framed, is not maintainable. The plaintiff has got no cause of action for the suit. The suit is barred by law of limitation and u/s. 4(c) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings & Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956. Further case is that Mahabir Singh, the father of the plaintiff was not the ex-landlord of Mauza Deohalia and plot No. 551 khata No. 185 area 10 decimals was never under the Zamindari of the said Mahabir Singh and he was never in possession of the said plot. It has further been stated that it is not correct to say that the suit plot was in occupation of the plaintiff and he used to grow vegetables over the same. It is also denied that the plaintiff had put Nad and Charan for keeping cattle over the same. It is also denied that the plaintiff had submitted return of the suit plot at the time of vesting of the estate. It has further been stated that during the revisional survey, the suit plot corresponding to plot No. 1090/2048 was recorded in the name of the State of Bihar and the said entry is correct. It is also stated that the notice under Sec. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was not properly served upon the defendant first set.

4. It appears that one Mulchand Hajam filed intervention petition which was allowed and by order dated 8.12.1987 he was impleaded as intervenor-defendant and thereafter he filed his written statement. From perusal of the written statement of the intervenor-defendant it appears that this defendant has also denied this fact that the father of the plaintiff was the ex