1. The substantial question of law formulated and to be answered by this Court in defendants' second appeal is as under:-

"Whether document Exhibit D-1 has been illegally discarded?"

[For sake of convenience, the parties would be referred hereinafter as per their status shown in the suit before the trial Court].

2. Sans unnecessary details, the facts which are essential to be stated for the purpose of disposal of the present second appeal are as under:-

Plaintiffs case:

2.1 The original plaintiffs, namely, Brij Bhushan and Brijraj filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. The relief of declaration was sought to the effect that they are owners of the suit properties situated at village Rameshpur and Shankarpur, Tahsil, Ramanujganj, District Surguja, described in Schedule 'C' and 'D' annexed with the plaint and the mutation of the land in favour of the defendants be declared null and void.

2.2 It is the case of the plaintiffs that at the time of Surguja settlement, the property in question was originally settled in the name of their father and uncle, namely, Ramgarib Kalar and Ramadhin Kalar in the 1938-1945. It was specifically averred in the plaint that Ramgarib died in the year 1955 and Ramadhin died issueless in the year 1950.

2.3 The plaintiffs further pleaded that after the death of father and uncle, they become the sole owners of the property described in Schedule 'A' and 'B' annexed with the plaint. It was also averred in the plaint that father of defendants behind the back of the father of the plaintiffs and their uncle, got mutated their names in respect of 17.58 acres of the land of Schedule 'A' and father and uncle of the plaintiffs were not aware in respect of the mutation.

2.4 It was also averred that the land bearing Khasra No. 135, area 0.72 acres was originally settled in the name of father of the plaintiffs, but, subsequently, the father of defendants by playing fraud and in collusion with Patwari, got recorded his name in the revenue records.

2.5 It was specifically averred in the plaint that the plaintiffs are in possession of all lands and they are cultivating the same, but on the revenue records, the father of defendants got recorded his name in respect of the said properties, and when they came to know in respect of the said fact, they filed a suit for declaration of their title and permanent injunction.

Defendant's case :

2.6 The defendants filed their written statement and denied all the averments made in the plaint. It was alleged that on the date of settlement operations, Ramgarib and Ramadhin were the eldest members in their family, therefore, the patta-parcha was prepared in their joint names.

2.7 It was also alleged in the written statement that on 27/02/1942, family arrangement (Exhibit D-1) took place, according to which, the lands of Schedule 'C' of the plaint were given to the defendants. In this way, since the year 1942, the father of the defendants and thereafter, the defendants are enjoying the separate possession of the lands of Schedule 'C' and 'D' attached with the plaint.

2.8 It was specifically pleaded that according to the said family arrangement, mutation was affected on 11/01/1959 and these lands were recorded in the name of father of the defendants, namely, Shivshankar Prasad. This family arrangement was never challenged by the plaintiffs or their predecessors and the same became final and binding on all the parties.

2.9 Since the plaintiffs are challenging the aforesaid family arrangement of the year 1942 in the year 1985, therefore, the suit is barred by limitation. The defendants also pleaded that they are in peaceful possession of the lands of Schedule 'C' and 'D' of the plaint from the year 1942, and the revenue records also show their possession, which is unobstructed and open and in this manner. In fact, they pleaded that alternatively they have perfected their title by way of adverse possession, though the words like adverse possession has not been mentioned b