Dr. Anshuman, J.—The present appeal has been filed by the appellants against the judgment and decree dated 09.07.1987 and 22.07.1987 passed and prepared respectively in Title Appeal No. 33 of 1975 by Mr. P. L. Kaungari, 5th Addl. District Judge, Siwan, reversing and setting aside the judgment dated 11.08.1975 and decree dated 28.08.1975 passed and prepared respectively by Mr. Prem Narain Shukla, First Munsif, Siwan, in Title Suit No. 2 of 1966.

2. The original appellant No. 1 to 7 were the plaintiffs of the title suit in which respondent No. 1 to 6 of present appeal were defendants and after decree of the title suit No. 2 of 1966 in favour of the original plaintiffs, original respondent Nos. 1 to 3 preferred Title Appeal No. 33 of 1975 in which the original appellants of memo of second appeal were respondents first set and original defendant Nos. 4 to 6 were respondent second set. The said appeal was allowed. Thereafter, the original plaintiffs-respondents first set had preferred the present second appeal which was numbered as Second Appeal No. 331 of 1987. But with the span of time, parties died and at their place, heirs and legal representatives of the respective parties were substituted at the place respective appellants and respondents whose name are shown in the present judgment.

3. Initially, the present appeal was admitted vide order dated 01.05.1989, in which one substantial question of law was framed, but subsequently, vide order No. 24 dated 24.09.2024, three more substantial questions of law have been framed. Those substantial questions of law are as follows:—

“(i) Whether in view of the fact that the original return was called for from the office of the Circle Officer and was admittedly not produced, the appellant could lead secondary evidence to prove the certified copy of the said return in terms of Section 65(e) of the Evidence Act?

(ii) Whether Khatian entry is a document of title and/or such recorded person has to prove his title independently?

(iii) Whether the Appellate Court Judgment not being in accordance with Order XLI, Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and passed without independent on consideration of the entire material on record, is unsustainable in law?

(iv) Whether daughtership of Halimani (heirs of present respondent), having been categorically denied by the plaintiff (present appellant), heavily onus lie on the defendants (respondents) to prove it according to Section 50 and 60 of the Evidence Act, which they have failed to do it?”

4. It is made clear that vide order No. 25 dated 28.01.2025, due to non-appearance of the respondents or their counsel, the present appeal has been fixed ‘For Hearing’ ex parte against the respondents in the light of the provisions made in Order XLI, Rule 17(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and subsequently, after hearing ex parte, the present appeal has been fixed for judgment.

5. Prior to deciding the substantial questions of law, it is necessary to place the case of the parties in brief.

Plaintiffs’ Case

6. The Plaintiffs’ case is that the ancestors of them were the Maliks of Tauzi No. 1342 before Revisional Survey. Ancestor of the Plaintiffs came in its possession over C.S. Plot No. 491 as Malik of village Matook Chapra, C.S. Plot No. 491 and 492 belonging to Bhajan Mishra and Mangal Shukla were of this Tauzi. These two plots were recorded in the Revisional survey as one plot no. 837 of Khata No. 96. Since Bhajan Mishra and Mangal Shukla died issueless before R.S. ancestor of the Plaintiffs came in its possession over C.S. Plot No. 491 and 492 as malik and began to cultivate them, after amalgamating the same. These two plots were recorded in R.S. as R.S. Plot No. 837 and R.S. Plot No. 838 also belonged to Mangal shukla but after the death of Mangal Shukla, Malik Achuta Nand Shukla came in its possession and later on this Achutanand Shukla settled it to Mukha Kamkar who is having his Nad, Khunta and Palani etc. over it and C.S. Plot No. 491 and 492 came in