Entries in revenue records do not confer title, and the limitation period for filing a suit must be considered as per Article 58 of the Limitation Act.

JUDGMENT :

This Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred against the judgment dated 28.01.2022 and Decree dated 04.02.2022 passed by learned Additional District Judge -1, Barh (Patna) in Title Appeal No. 30 of 2018 confirming the judgment dated 09.02.2018 and Decree dated 21.02.2018 passed by the learned Sub-Judge -III, Barh, District – Patna in Title Suit No. 146 of 2011, whereby the learned trial Court has allowed the suit of the plaintiffs/respondents on contest.

2. The respondents were the plaintiffs in the Trial Court who had filed the suit, inter alia, for declaration of title to the exclusion of defendants over the suit land Plot No. 40, area 4 dec., Khata No. 222, Tauzi No. – 9165, Thana No. – 50 (Mauza-Dariyapur Dheebar, P.S. Pandarak, District – Patna) mentioned in the Schedule – 1 of the plaint.

3. The case of the plaintiffs/respondents, in brief, is that entire area measuring 20 dec. of plot No. 40 under Khata No. 222, Tauzi No. – 9165, Thana No. – 50 belonged to and possessed by Etbari Lal before the cadestral survey and, in the records of right, his name stands recorded as tenant. The common ancestor of the plaintiffs, namely, Badri Singh had purchased the said land from the cadestral survey recorded tenant, namely, Etbari Lal through a registered sale deed no. 350 dated 03.05.1910 and came into the possession. The said plot measuring 20 dec. was amalgamated with the neighbouring adjacent plot No. 39 area – 51 dec. recorded in the name of Badri Singh and he had been coming in cultivating possession over this amalgamated area of 71 decimal. The said Badri Singh died leaving behind his two sons, namely, Ambika Prasad Singh and Mathura Prasad Singh (died issueless). Ambika Prasad Singh died leaving behind his six sons including plaintiff No. 1 and Ram Ratan Prasad Singh father of plaintiff No. 2. In the family partition, 35.5 decimal towards south of the amalgamated 71 decimal land was allotted to plaintiff No. 1 and rest half towards north allotted to Ram Ratan Prasad Singh and in family partition of Ram Ratan Prasad Singh through compromise decree 35.5 dec. northern part was allotted to plaintiff No. 2. The ex-landlord and also after vesting of jamindari, State of Bihar had recognized Ambika Prasad Singh (father of plaintiff No. 1 and grandfather of plaintiff No. 2) as tenant of entire 20 Decimal of plot alongwith other lands. Further case of the plaintiffs-respondents is that the defendants having their land plot No. 41 situated in the west of the suit land, had broken the intervening western ridges and claimed the suit land of his own. In demarcation case No. 29 of 2010 before D.C.L.R., Barh, it was wrongly held that the suit land is in possession of the defendants, so the suit was filed by the plaintiffs.

4. As per defendants-appellants, Late Makhan Mahto was the ancestor of defendants, who died in jointness, leaving behind three sons, namely, Huro Mahto, Ferangi Mahto and Biraj Mahto, who were raiyat, servants, Halwaha and settlee of said Badri Singh. They were the possession holder of the suit plot and hence, raiyati Khatiyan had been prepared and issued in favour of Huro Mahto, the ancestor of the defendants. Huro Mahto was in jointness with his brothers Ferangi Mahto and Biraj Mahto. On amicable family partition by metes and bounds Huro Mahto and Ferangi Mahto remained joint but Biraj Mahto was separated to whom 2 decimal of the said 6 decmial land was given. Huro Mahto died leaving behind his only son Judagi Mahto and Ferangi Mahto died leaving behind Bhikhari Mahto. Bhikhari Mahto died during lifetime of Judagi Mahto leaving behind his two sons, namely, Nageshwar Mahto and Bhubaneshwar Mahto. Huro Mahto, Ferangi Mahto and Bhikhari Mahto had died prior to vesting of Jamindari so Judagi, Nageshwar and Bhubaneshwar Mahto were jointly paying the rent and getting rent receipt from the Zamindar for 4 decimal of plot No. 40. The name of the defendants have been entered in