Sunil Dutta Mishra, J. – Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 25.02.2005 passed by learned Additional District Judge, F.T.C – II, Kaimur at Bhabhua in T.A. No. 39/98 (40/04) affirming the judgment and decree dated 09.02.1998 passed by learned Sub-Judge-I, Bhabhua in T.S. No. 87/1994 whereby the suit filed on behalf of Appellant/Plaintiff was dismissed on contest.

3. The appellant was plaintiff in the suit. The plaintiffappellant had filed the suit for declaration of his right and title over the suit land and that the original defendant (now represented through his heirs/respondents) has no concern with the suit land and that the defendant’s interference in the suit land is illegal.

4. The case of appellant/plaintiff in brief is that Khata No. 159, plot No. 2222 and 2223 belongs to the father of plaintiff which were bifurcated in two parts by Surara Canal which passes through these plots. The father of the plaintiff sold lands to many persons and only 12 Decimal of sahan land adjacent east to canal was left to him out of which he sold 6¾ Decimal of lands towards east to the defendant on 23.11.1959 and plaintiff remained in possession of the rest land of 5-1/4 Decimal adjacent east to the canal which is the suit property. It is alleged that defendant is very clever who got revisional survey prepared wrongly in respect of entire 12 decimal of lands in his name in R.S Khata No. 671 R.S. Plot No. 3204, so 5¼ decimal of land belonging to the plaintiff was also wrongly mapped in R.S Plot No. 3204 of which sketch map is given in the plaint and the defendant also disclosed that khatiyan has been prepared of 12 decimal of land in their name. Then plaintiff obtained the certified copy of sale deed executed in favour of defendant and came to know for the first time that the western boundary of the sale deed had wrongly inserted as Nahar. The father of the plaintiff died in the year 1991 and the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land. On 1.2.1994 defendants wanted to grab the disputed land and threatened to dispossess the plaintiff from the disputed land. Hence, the Plaintiff/Appellant filed filed the aforesaid suit.

5. The case of the respondent / original defendant is that defendant had purchased 9 decimal (not 6 ¾ decimal) lands by the sale deed and after execution of sale deed they have been coming in possession of 9 decimal of land. The land purchased by the defendant was not measured prior to the execution of the sale deed due to unmeasurable condition of that land. After selling the land to defendant, the plaintiff has got no land there. The father of the plaintiff had never claimed the suit land in his lifetime who had full knowledge of the entry of the R.S. Khatiyan. The description of the suit land as mentioned in the plaint is not in existence. The suit land was never demarcated. On the purchased 9 decimal land defendant has constructed his house and had sold 2 decimal of land to Chirkut Lohar and Bhola Lohar. Diwakar Chaubey was already in possession of 3 decimal of land in the same plot prior to execution of sale deed to the defendant. The defendant raised the objection that the suit is time barred, the plaintiff has got no valid cause of action for the suit, the area of canal which passes through the suit land has not been given and the location of the suit land has not been properly demarcated and explained in the plaint.

6. The defendant No. 1 died on 01.09.1995 during the pendency of the suit and the petition of the plaintiff under Order XXII Rule 4(4) of C.P.C. for exemption from bringing on record the heirs of defendant No. 1 was allowed by the learned trial Court.

7. The learned trial Court framed following five issues for decision:

1. Whether the suit is maintainable?

2. Whether the plaintiff has got valid cause of action for the suit?

3. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

4. Whether the plaintiff has got title and possessio