V. NATH, J.:–Heard Mr Keshav Kumar Srivastava, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants as well as Mr Uma Shankar Prasad, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. The defendants are the appellants in this appeal against the judgment and decree of reversal decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs.

3. The plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of their title and recovery of possession over the suit lands described in Schedule I & II of the plaint and the ancillary relief. The property described in Schedule I of the plaint is 7.90 of land of Mauza-Maheshmunda, P.S.- Kahalgaon, District- Bhagalpur recorded in Cadastral Survey Khatian in Khata No. 591, C.S. Plot No.1281 which corresponds to R.S.Plot No. 602, R.S.Plot Nos. 2722 and 2733, area 7.82 acres in the recent survey khatian. The Schedule II of the plaint contains description of 48 decimals of land of Mauja-Alampur, P.S.Kahalgaon, District-Bhagalpur recorded in C.S.Plot No.249 of C.S.Khata No.31 corresponding to R.S.Plot No. 363 of R.S.Khata No.73 area 44 decimals. The plaintiffs have claimed their title over the aforesaid suit lands as their ancestral lands and have stated that those lands have been recorded in the cadastral survey khatian in the name of Amrit Mandal who was predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs. It is the case of the plaintiffs they had been coming in possession over those lands as title holders but the defendants dispossessed them in the year 1999 and therefore, the suit with the aforesaid relief of declaration of title, recovery of possession and correction of survey entries in the name of the defendants for the suit lands has been filed.

4. The defendants have not denied the fact that the suit lands had been recorded in the cadastral survey in the name of Amrit Mandal who was the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs. However, it is their case that Amrit Mandal did not remain in possession over those lands till his death and it has been pleaded in paragraph 6 of the written statement that during his lifetime the suit land mentioned in Schedule I of the plaint was settled with Jagarnath Mandal who was the maternal grandfather of the defendants. The defendants have also pleaded that Jagarnath Mandal executed a registered deed of agreement in favour of the ex-landlord on 26.08.1926 stating therein that in view of the oral agreement he had accepted to pay the rent for the suit land at the enhanced rate as mentioned in the deed. It is also the case of the defendants that after the death of Jagarnath Mandal, his widow Most Banita executed a registered gift deed in the year 1960 in favour of the mother of the defendants with regard to the suit land and the defendants have acquired title thereto by inheritance. Further, the defendants have based their title over the suit land described in Schedule II of the plaint on the basis of the sale deed executed by Basant Kumar Nayak in their favour asserting that Basant Kumar Nayak had the title over that land.

5. In view of the rival pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed altogether 7 issues out of which the issue no.5 was tried as material issue which is as follows: Issue No.5- Whether plaintiffs have got valid right, title and interest over the suit land and whether they are entitled for the recovery of possession?

6. After scrutiny of the evidence, the trial court returned the finding that the plaintiffs had failed to establish their title over the suit lands and dismissed the suit. In appeal by the plaintiffs, the appellate court after reappraisal of evidence has reversed the judgment and decree of the trial court and decreed the suit upholding the title of the plaintiffs over the suit lands and granting the relief for recovery of possession.

7. This second appeal has been admitted for hearing on the following substantial questions of law:—

(I) Whether the lower appellate Court could have reversed the Judgment of the trial Court without meeting the reas