The main legal point established in the judgment is that the suit filed by the Plaintiff was within the prescribed limitation period, and the entitlement to the land was based on the evidence presented.

Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.

1. This second appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by the Defendant challenging the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court, decreeing the Plaintiffs' suit for declaration and permanent injunction while setting aside the Trial Court's judgment whereby Plaintiffs' suit was dismissed.

2. Plaintiffs case, as reflected in the plaint, is that one Bhagirathi (died in 1946) was their grandfather who owned and possessed the suit land described in Schedule-A with the plaint. Their father Daya (died in 1973) was the only son of late Bhagirathi. On 1/08/2001 the Plaintiff became aware that one Darbari S/o Matro Gadheri, the lather of Defendant No. 1 Radheshyam has surreptitiously got recorded his name in the revenue records pertaining to lands covered in Schedule-B which is the suit land. Plaintiffs applied for certified copies of the record of rights of the year 1944-45 and for the first time they became aware on 20/08/2001, on receipt of the said record of right that name of Defendant's father Darbari has been jointly recorded with the name of Plaintiffs' father Daya in the revenue records and the said entry of the name of Defendant's father is illegal and without any title. Plaintiffs name were recorded in the revenue records after death of their father Daya in 1973 and at that time the name of Defendant's father was not recorded in the revenue records as he had absolutely no right, title or interest in the suit land.

3. According to the Plaintiffs their grandfather Bhagirathi had only one son namely Daya and the Defendant Radheshyam or his father Darbari do not belong to their family. They are in possession of the land, however since after coming to know that Defendant is trying to alienate the suit land, the present suit was filed.

4. Case of the Defendant/Appellant is that Bhagirathi had two sons namely Daya and Darbari and as such he being the only son of Darbari, is entitled to succeed to the property belonging to the family. It was further stated in the written statement that name of Daya and Darbari was jointly recorded from 1954 till 1973 and in 1974 Plaintiffs' name were recorded after death of their father Daya. They further stated that during his lifetime Daya never objected to recording of the name of Darbari and infact Plaintiffs also did not raise any objection when their name was recorded along with the name of Darbari in the revenue records and again no such objection was raised in 1988 and 1989 when Tahsildar Surajpur affected a partition between the Plaintiffs and Darbari. It was specifically stated that late Bhagirathi, the owner of the land, was also known as Bhagirathi alias Matro, thus Bhagirathi and Matro are the name of one and the same person and that there is no other person known as Matro in Village Kusmusi and thus name of Darbari was recorded in the revenue records as he was S/o Bhagirathi alias Matro. It was further slated that burden to prove that Bhagirathi and Matro were two different persons, lies on the Plaintiffs.

5. The Defendants also raised objection that the suit is barred by limitation and no cause of action has arisen in favour of Plaintiff for filing the present suit.

6. Both the parties have led oral evidence and produced documents in support of their respective cases. The Trial Court dismissed the suit after recording a finding that Bhagirathi and Matro was the name of one person and thus Darbari being S/o Bhagirathi alias Matro, the Defendant No. 1 Radheshyam is also entitled to get recorded his name in the revenue records and thus Plaintiffs' suit for declaration and permanent injunction was dismissed. It was also held that the suit is barred by limitation.

7. The First Appellate Court allowed the appeal preferred by the Plaintiffs and while setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, it has decreed the suit. The First Appellate Court found that the Plaintiffs' suit is within limitation and