A suit for declaration of title to property, filed after 60 years of the sale of the property by the plaintiffs' predecessors, is barred by limitation.

1. THIS Court has heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties.

2. THE facts of the case, briefly, are as follows : The appellants along with one Sri Krishna Chandra Jhal filed Title Suit No. 286 of 1995 which was re-numbered as Title suit No. 95 of 1998 and was placed before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Additional Court at Asanspl, Burdwan. The said suit was filed against the respondent and one M/s. Bengal Coal Company and the B.L and L.R.O, Kulti and also the State of West Bengal through the Collector, Burdwan. In the said suit the said Krishna Chandra Jhal was the plaintiff No. 1. The plaintiffs prayed for a decree for declaration of the plaintiffs' alleged absolute title in the suit property upon the findings that both the R.S. as well as the one man one khatian recording in the name of the defendant No. 2 (Bengal Coal Company) is wrong and the alleged kobala deed dated 29.02.1977 executed by Shefalika Dey in favour of the defendant No. 1 (respondent) is a void deed. The plaintiffs prayed for a decree of permanent injunction for restraining, the defendants from entering into the suit property and from disturbing the plaintiffs' alleged. peaceful khas possession in the same and from dispossessing the plaintiffs therefrom. The plaintiffs also prayed for a decree of mandatory injunction against the defendant Nos. 3 and 4 [(B.L. and L.R.O) Kulti and State of West Bengal, respectively] directing the said defendants to record the suit property in the name of the plaintiffs after cancelling the name of the defendant No.2. The case of the plaintiffs was, inter alia, to the effect that one Jadu Jhal (Plaintiffs' grand father) was the absolute owner of 6 decimals of land (suit property) out of 24 decimals of land in a certain plot No. 252 which he got by way of amicable partition and the said Jadu Jhal had been in peaceful possession of the said 6 decimals of land for much more than 12 years continuously, openly and without any interruption and to the knowledge of the defendants. The plaintiffs case is that before the R.S. records were prepared the said Jadu Jhal died leaving behind his two sons, that is, Jogendra Jhal (father of the plaintiff No. 1) and Nagendra Jhal ( father of the plaintiff Nos. 2 to 4) and the said two sons of Jadu Jhal continued to be in peaceful khas possession of the said property. According to the plaintiffs, Jogendra died leaving behind the plaintiff No. 1 as his only son and legal heir and the said Nagendra died leaving behind the plaintiff Nos. 2 to 4 as his only sons and legal heirs. The plaintiff has pleaded that the plaintiffs as heirs and successors of the said Nagendra and Jogendra have jointly inherited the said 6 decimals of land and the plaintiffs have been jointly possessing the suit property as absolute owners. The plaintiffs' case is that neither the plaintiffs' predecessors nor the plaintiffs have ever transferred the suit property to any person but on 20.11.1995 the defendant No. 1 with his men and agents attempted to take forcible possession of the suit property on the plea that he had purchased the suit property from one Shefalika Dey on 29.2.1977. The plaintiffs have alleged that on 21.11.1995 the plaintiffs came to learn from the office of the B.L and L.R.O that the said entire suit plot No. 252 has been recorded in the name of the defendant No. 2 in the R.S. records-of-rights and on such basis the present one man one khatian recording has also been done in the name of the defendant No. 2. The plaintiffs have alleged that their uncle Motilal Jhal was entrusted to have the suit property recorded in the record-of-right in favour of the plaintiffs but in the absence of the plaintiffs the recording in the revenue records were made erroneously in the name of the defendant No. 2. The plaintiffs have alleged that the defendant No.3 has already turned down the prayer for correction of the record-of-right and hence the plaintiffs had to file the said suit. The plai