1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 6.2.1995 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in CWJC No. 1737 of 1994 whereby and whereunder the order dated 12.3.1991/16.3.1991 passed by Consolidation Officer, Majorganj in Objection Case No. 769/1989, the order dated 28.12.92 passed by the Dy. Director, Consolidation, Sitamarhi in Consolidation Appeal No. 169/ 1991 and the order dated 11.11.93/18.11.93 passed by the Joint Director. Consolidation, Muzaffarpur in Revision No. 56/93 (annexures-9, 10 & 12 respectively in CWJC No. 1737/94) have been quashed and the case has been remanded back to the Consolidation Officer, Majorganj, Sitamarhi for a fresh decision.

2. It is admitted case of the parties that the deceased Gopal Singh had three sons names, Indrajeet Singh, Brijmohan Singh and Sukhdayal Singh. The present three appellants, who were respondents 5. 6 and 7 in the writ application, represent the branch of late Jeetu Singh who was son of Brijmohan Singh. The present respondents no. 1 to 10 who were petitioners in the Writ Application are the descendants of Indrajit Singh. The disputes relates to land of RS Khata nos. 471 and 160 situates within the Mauza, Ratanpur, Thana no. 27, Anchal & PS Majorganj district Sitamarhi.

3. The case of the present respondents no. 1 to 10 is that their ancestors purchased the land of Khata no. 471 by different sale deeds on different dates as well as in an auction sale vide annexures 1 to 1 (i) series of the writ application from the separate income and therefore, these properties acquired by them are their self acquired "properties. After acquisition of land in question the names of ancestors of the respondents no. 1 to 10 were mutated in the Sarista of ex-landlord and after vesting of jamindari the outgoing landlord had submitted return to the State of Bihar with respect to the land in question and on that basis register-ll was prepared and thereafter the State of Bihar as landlord started to grant rent receipts to them. This piece of evidence, therefore, shows that there was separation between respondents 1 to 10 and the present three appellants. Further, case is that the ancestors of respondents no. 1 to 10 late Uchit Singh had purchased the land of Khata no. 471 mentioning 12 bighas, 2 kathas and 11 dhurs in execution suits nos. 1205/ 1938, 1299/1938, 1203/1938 and 1204/1938 and on the basis of the said decree delivery of possession was done and the name of late Uchit Singh was mutated in the Sarista of ex-landlord in 1351 Fasali and since then the ancestor of the respondents and after him respondents 1 to 10 are coming in peaceful possession of the same. It is further said that late Jeetu Singh alongwith his wife Deo Sundari Devi and two sons, Ram Sanjivan Singh and Ram Vinay Singh had partitioned their joint property by registered deed of partition no. 4310 dated 29.09.70 and this deed of partition does not include the land of Khata no. 471 in question. It is said that over the land of RS Khata no. 160 there are houses of few muslim.

4. The stand of the present appellants is that land or Khata no. 471 is joint property and the same has not been partitioned in between the appellants and respondents no.1 to 10 and further their case that late Jeetu Singh, son of Brijmohan Singh was the adopted son of Sukhdayal Singh vide registered deed of adoption dated 23.5.1935 and, therefore, Jeetu Singh was entitled to get 2/3 share in the joint property of Khata No. 471 as the adoption was in Kritrima Form under Mithila School. According to respondents the revisionai khatiyan was finally published in the year 1966 and the name of respondents no.1 to 10 and their ancestors were shown as owners of the land. The appellants did not file any objection against the said final publication of RS Khatiyan. The records of rights prepared during Consolidation was published in between February, 1988 and March, 1988 but the appellants did not file any objection. In the y