JUDGMENT :

1. This is plaintiff's first appeal against the judgment and decree passed by third Additional District Judge, Janjgir Champa passed in Civil Suit No. 58-A/2016, by which Civil Suit filed by the plaintiffs for declaration of title and permanent injunction has been rejected.

2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the plaintiffs have filed the suit contending that the suit land situated at village Siladehi, total khasra numbers 14, area 4.53 acres is ancestral property of plaintiffs. (For the sake of brevity it be referred to as suit property). After separation of revenue record the suit land has been recorded in the name of Panchram. Genealogy tree has also been mentioned in the plaint. It is contended that Panchram and Guruwari Bai were issueless whereas Goverdhan and others are sons of Laxman, who was elder brother of Panchram. They have separated the revenue record which was imaginary and in fact there was no actual partition between Governdhan and Panchram. Governdhan and plaintiffs were in possession of the entire ancestral property. Since, Panchram and Guruwari Bai have become old, they are being looked after by the plaintiff. Later on, Panchram expired and Guruwari Bai became owner of the property and she also expired on 30.06.2010. After her death plaintiffs are exclusive owners of the suit property. It is further pleaded that after death of Guruwari Bai, defendant No. 1 has filed an application for mutation before the Tahsildar Bamhnidih on the basis of Will executed on 16.04.2010 in favour of Gayatri Parivar Siladehi. Tahsildar Bamnidih has passed the order in favour of defendant No.1 against which, the plaintiff No.1 has preferred an appeal before Sub Divisional Officer, Janjgir Champa which was rejected.

Later on, the plaintiff No.1 has preferred a second appeal before Commissioner, Bilaspur which is pending. It is contended that despite pendency of the application for grant of stay, defendant No.1 has corrected the revenue record. Since, plaintiff is in possession of the suit property, therefore, defendant No.1 could not get the possession of the suit property. It is further contended that in village Siladehi neither any Gayatri Pariwar nor any institution in the name of Gayatri Pariwar was functioning and so called Will deed on the basis of which defendant No.1 is claiming title is void ab inito, therefore, defendant No.1 does not get any title over the suit property. The defendant No.1 after recording his name has raised dispute against the plaintiffs which has necessitated them to file the present suit.

3. It has been further contended that out of 14 khasras, five khasra measuring 2.73 acres has been acquired by defendant No.2 though the suit land or any part thereof has been acquired from plaintiff or Guruwari Bai. It has also been contended that the plaintiff has not received any information with regard to issuance of notification regarding acquisition. It is contended that neither any information has been given nor it has been displaced in a prominent place where it can be seen, as such mandatory provisions for acquisition have not been followed. It has also been stated in the plaint, that defendant No.2 has not acquired any possession of the suit property and has prayed that it be kindly declared that the plaintiff is title holder of the suit property and is also entitled to get permanent injunction. It has also been prayed that defendant No.1 has dispossessed the plaintiffs; therefore, he is also entitled to get mesne profit to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- for loss suffered by them.

4. The defendant No.1 has filed his written statement denying the allegation made in the plaint and contending that the suit property is not ancestral property but after death of Laxman the property has been recorded in the name of legal heirs of Laxman and father of Kunjram as per the order of Revenue Court passed on 13.07.1977 in partition proceedings. The partition taken place between them was never