Vishnudeo Narayan, J.

1. This appeal as the instance of the defendant-appellant has been directed against the impugned judgment of reversal and decree dated 21.9.1988 and 30.11.1988 respectively passed in Title Appeal No. 56 of 1970 by Shri Bharat Prasad Sharma, 4th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh whereby and whereunder the judgment and decree dated 25.6.1970 and 3.7.1970 passed in Title Suit No. 798 of 1965/47 of 1967 by Additional Munsif, Hazaribagh was set aside and the appeal was allowed the suit of the plaintiff was decreed.

2. The plaintiff-respondent had filed the said Title Suit for declaration of his title and confirmation of possession over the suit property detailed in Schedule B of the plaint and in the alternative for recovery of possession. A relief for permanent injunction restraining defendant Nos. 1 to 7 from disturbing the possession of the plaintiff in respect of Schedule B land was also sought.

3. This suit has a very chequered history. Initially the suit was dismissed on contest vide judgment dated 30.5.1968 and decree dated 13.6.1968 by the Additional Munsif and the plaintiff preferred Title Appeal No. 71 of 1968/11 of 1970 before the appellate Court below and the said appeal was allowed setting aside the impugned judgment and decree of the trial Court and the suit was remanded for a fresh decision in accordance with law for consideration afresh of both the documentary and oral evidence. Thereafter the learned trial Court again dismissed the suit vide its judgment and decree dated 28.6.1970 and 3.7.1970. The plaintiff preferred Title Appear No. 56 of 1970. The said appeal was allowed and the impugned judgment of the trial Court was set aside and the suit of the plaintiff was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 12.3.1973 and 24.3.1973. The defendant preferred Second Appeal No. 257 of 1973 before this Court. This Court vide judgment dated 4.12.1981 allowed the appeal and judgment and decree of the appellate Court below was set aside and the case was remanded to the appellate Court below with a direction to record the finding as to whether the plaintiffs have succeeded in proving the settlement of 1922 in favour of defendant No. 8 and in case the Court below finds that the settlement was made in 1922 the suit will have to be decreed provided of course, it is not barred by time. The appellate Court below vide impugned judgment dated 21.9.1988 again allowed the appeal and judgment and decree of the learned trial Court was set aside and the suit of the plaintiff was decreed.

4. This appeal before this Court has been preferred by the defendant- appellant against the impugned judgment of the appellate Court below on remand.

5. During the pendency of the appeal on remand before the appellate Court below a petition was filed on 12.5.1986 to admit the Hukumnama of the year 1922 (4th of Asadh Sambat 1979) executed by Smt. Janki Devi daughter of Sita Kuer and Uchaiti Devi daughter of Chameli Devi in favour of defendant No. 8 Bhagan Mahto which was brought on the record of Title Suit No. 798 of 1965 on 2.5.1968 from the custody of defendant No. 8 and after hearing the parties the said Hukumnama was admitted into evidence and marked Ext. 8 vide order dated 21.9.1988 in pursuance of the order dated 3.8.1987 after impounding the said document.

6. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that Khata No. 27 of village Jagdishpur was recorded in the name of Dhanu Mahto in the cadastral Survey Records of Right and after the survey operation said Dhanu Mahto died issueless and the landlords Nageshwar Singh. Most. Chameli Devi, Kasida Kuer and Most. Sita Kuer resumed the possession of land of Khata No. 27. Most. Chameli Devi died leaving behind a daughter Most. Uchaiti Devi. Most. Sita Devi died leaving behind a daughter Janki Devi whereas Most. Kashida Kuer died issueless. Nageshwar Singh aforesaid settled with defendant No. 7 Bansidhar Upadhyay several plots of Khata No. 27 by virtue of a registered patt