Khatim Reza, J. – This Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 06.10.2010 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, F.T.C. II, Nawada in Title Appeal No. 05 of 1999/02 of 2010 whereby the learned appellate court has affirmed the judgment and decree dated 23.02.1999 passed by the Munsif, Nawada, in Title Suit No. 306 of 1999 whereby, the learned trial court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-appellant.

2. In this appeal, the following substantial questions of law have been formulated for determination: –

I. Whether in view of the averment of plaintiff in the plaint regarding settlement of 5 ½ dhurs (approximately one decimal) of land of plot no. 2690 from the ex-landlord after the cadastral survey and non-denial of this fact by the defendants in their written statement, the impugned judgments can be sustained without legal adjudication of this claim of the plaintiff on the basis of the evidence adduced in that regard?

II. Whether when admittedly C.S. Plot no. 2690 has been recorded as Katchhari in Cadastral Survey Khatiyan as well as revisional survey Khatiyan, the ex-landlord/tenure holder could have the right to settle the suit land with the plaintiff?

III. Whether the evidence on record as led by the plaintiff to corroborate the case of settlement of the suit land i.e. 5 ½ dhurs of plot no. 2690 are sufficient to uphold the said claim and whether in view of insufficiency of the evidence in this regard the impugned judgments can be held to be valid?

3. In order to gauge the matter in its correct perspective, it is necessary to briefly restate what the suit entails. The suit was filed by the plaintiff-appellant for declaration of title and confirmation of possession and further declaration that survey in the name of defendants-respondents with regard to the suit land was wrong and also for permanent injunction restraining defendant nos. 1 and 2 from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession as also from demolition of structure standing over the suit lands or from changing physical features of the suit land as well as sought relief for declaration that the revisional survey entry with respect to the suit land is wrong and is not binding on the plaintiff.

4. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that, land of C.S. Plot No. 2691 area 4 decimal, Khata No. 341 was owned and possessed by Tunia Devi wife of Dhalo Kahar which was orally settled from ex-landlord on which there was a residential house. Her name was recorded in the Cadastral Survey in remarks column showing her possession. Most. Tunia Devi took settlement of 5 ½ dhurs of land of plot no. 2690 from the ex-landlord coupled with delivery of possession immediately after Cadastral Survey and remained in possession. Most. Tunia Devi sold 16 ½ decimal of lands to Jaldhari Kahar and put him in possession. Further, case of the plaintiff is that thereafter the said Jaldhari Kahar orally purchased 5 ½ dhurs land of C.S. Plot No. 2690 from Most. Tunia Devi in the year 1932 accompanied with delivery of possession. Jaldhari Kahar got constructed a house consisting of shops over amalgamated lands of plot no. 2691 and 2690 immediately after oral purchase of the aforesaid land. It is further case of the plaintiff that Jaldhari Kahar and his vendor prior to him had already perfected their title by law of adverse possession by remaining in peaceful possession over the house and lands openly continuously uninterruptedly to the knowledge of ex-landlord. The said Jaldhari Kahar sold the said lands consisting house, shops and other structure standing over plot no. 2691 and 2690 to Chando Devi, mother of plaintiff and defendant no. 3 by virtue of registered sale deed dated 18.09.1946 for a valuable consideration of Rs. 6000/- and delivered the possession to the said Chando Devi. Chando Devi used to live in the said house along with her husband and sons. It is submitted that Mathura Pd., husband of Chando Devi had a clinic in the said outer sh