Shailendra Singh, J.—The instant First Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 26.03.2010 passed in the Title Suit No. 27 of 2001 by the learned trial court of Sub Judge-VII, Muzaffarpur by which the plaintiffs’ suit was dismissed on contest. The appellants were plaintiffs before the learned trial court whereas the sole respondent was the defendant. The plaintiffs filed their suit with a prayer to declare their title in the suit land. Here, it is important to mention that the respondent appeared before the learned trial court but failed to file written statement despite being given several opportunities by the learned trial court and finally, one more opportunity to file the written statement on the condition of payment of Rs. 100/- (Rupees One Hundred) was granted but even then the cost was not deposited, so, the learned trial court did not take into account the written statement filed by the defendant at later stage and since there was no pleading of the defendant, so, the learned trial court did not frame issue. Further, the defendant did not give any oral or documentary evidence to disprove or rebut the plaintiffs’ pleadings and finally, both the parties were heard and the learned trial court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs mainly on three following grounds.

2. First ground, is that, the suit land is in the name of Bihar Government and in this regard, there is an entry in the Revisional Survey Khatiyan (in short ‘RS Khatiyan’) which was done between 1972 and 1981 and the said entry is alleged to be wrong as per pleading of the plaintiffs but neither the vendor of the appellants nor the appellants themselves attempted to correct the entry in the RS (Khatiyan) and the suit was filed thirty years after the completion and publication of the RS (Khatiyan) while the same ought to have been filed within three years from the date of the publication of the RS (Khatiyan).

3. The second ground which was taken into account by the learned trial court in dismissing the suit of the appellants is that there are variations in respect of the boundaries in the sale deeds (Exts. ‘1’, ‘1/A’ and ‘4’) which are related to the transfer of title in favour of the appellants and their vendors.

4. The third ground is that the plaintiffs failed to prove by adducing sufficient evidence that Shri Kameshwar Singh then Maharaja Dhiraj, Darbhanga, who was said to be the owner of the suit land, had ownership title and right to sale the same through his Chief Manager. As per learned trial court, the main question for determination was whether the plaintiffs got a valid title through the sale deed No. 19871 dated 09.09.2000 (Ext.- ‘1’) and whether the land in question was validly transferred to the plaintiffs by their vendors having legal title in the suit land and therefore, whether the plaintiffs/appellants were entitled to get the decree of the declaration of their title in the suit land. The said questions were answered against the plaintiffs by the trial court and consequently, their suit was dismissed

5. Mr. Nagendra Rai, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants has argued that the aforesaid grounds taken by the learned trial court in the judgment impugned while disbelieving the claim of the plaintiffs are completely not tenable in the eye of law. As it is an admitted position that the pleadings of the plaintiffs remained unrebutted as the written statement filed by the defendant was not taken into consideration by the learned trial court and further, no evidence was adduced by the defendant against the pleadings of the plaintiffs and accordingly, there was no denial of the pleadings of the plaintiffs by the defendant and it is well settled law that if there is no specific denial by the defendant in respect of the specific plea taken by the plaintiff in his pleading then such pleading must be treated as being admitted. In support of this contention, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court passed in the ca