Syed Md.Mahfooz Alam, J.

1. This Second Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree passed by Sri S.S. Das, learned District Judge, Siwan, on 29th April, 1988, in Title Appeal No. 125 of 1986 reversing the judgment and decree passed on 20th September, 1986, by Sri Arun Prabhat, learned IInd Additional Munsif, Siwan, in Title Suit No. 243 of 1966/48 of 1986, whereby the learned Munsif had dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent.

2. The case of the plaintiff-respondent, in brief, is that one Bhanwar Bind had two sons, namely, Goga Bind and Dhondha Bind. Nand Lal, Palatu and Dashrath Bind were sons of Goga Bind. Palatu Bind and Dashrath Bind died issueless. Nand Lal Bind had a son, namely, Rajpati Bind. His name was recorded in the record of rights (Khatiyan). Another son of Bhanwar Bind, namely, Dhondha Bind had two sons, namely, Sakti Bind and Ugram Bind. Ugram Bind died issueless. Sakti Bind had three sons, namely, Jokhan Bind, Tokhan Bind and Mangaru Bind. Jokhan Bind died before revisional survey. Managru had a son, namely, Girdhari Bind, who settled in Assam prior to revisional survey having no connection in village Khulsa as such the entire properties left by Dhondha Bind were inherited by Tokhan Bind. Plaintiff is the son of Tokhan Bind. The two branches of Goga Bind and Dhondha Bind were separate since before the cadestral survey. This is also mentioned in the records of cadestral survey and revisional survey. From the genealogical table, as described above, it is clear that Rajpati Bind was the uncle of the plaintiff, who died shortly after revisional survey leaving no male or female issue and, so, the plaintiffs father being the sole heir of Rajpati Bind inherited the entire properties left by Rajpati. Thereafter, the father of the plaintiff also died leaving behind him the plaintiff as his sole heir and therefore the entire properties of the two branches came in possession of the plaintiff and since that time the plaintiff has been coming in possession of the properties in dispute. The plaintiff was exercising the acts of possession over the properties and planted orchard thereon but the defendants-appellants, who are the descendants of ex-landlord, started interfering with the possession of the plaintiff and, hence, necessity of filing of the suit arose.

3. The case of the defendants-appellants, in brief, is that the suit as framed is not maintainable and the plaintiff has got no cause of action or right to sue. The genealogy, as appended in the plaint, is forged and fabricated and by doing so the plaintiff has tried to connect himself with the family of Goga Bind. The defendants have asserted that Bhanwar Bind had only one son, namely, Goga Bind and Dhondha, Bind had no connection with Bhanwar Bind. They were not from one family which fact finds support from Khatiyan which was prepared separately. Rajpati Bind was not related to the plaintiff. He died issueless about 2-3 years after the revisional survey and his properties were taken in possession by the ancestors of the defendants as they were the landlords and since then the lands of Rajpati Bind were coming in possession of the ancestors of the defendants. Subsequently they settled homestead lands of Rajpati to another tenant. The plaintiff never came in possession of the properties of Rajpati Bind. It is also incorrect that after the death of Tokhan Bind the plaintiff came in possession of the properties left by Tokhan Bind. S.P. No. 1575, 625, 1992 appertaining to Khata No. 223 and S.P. No. 1750/2559 appertaining to Khata No. 224 were recorded in Khatiyan in the name of Tokhan Bind but as S.P. Nos. 1575 and 1992 were strile lands and, so, Tokhan Bind surrendered those lands and retained only S.P. No. 625 after getting the rent reduced. Plaintiff is in possession of only S.P. No. 625 after the death of Tokhan Bind. S.P. No. 1750/2559 was the Batai land of Tokhan Bind. The said land was flood affected land and, so, after some time of