Hari Shankar Prasad, J.

1. This second appeal, at the instant of the appellants, is directed against the judgment dated 13.6.1990 and decree dated 25.6.1990 passed in Title Appeal No. 35/89, whereby and whereunder the learned 6th Additional District Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj set-aside the judgment and decree dated 25.5.1989 passed by Sub-Judge 1st, Palamau at Daltonganj decreeing Title Suit No. 60/82.

2. Appellants were plaintiffs in the lower Court and the case of the plaintiffs-appellants is that they filed Title Suit No. 60/82 in the Court of Sub-Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj against defendant-respondent praying therein for declaration of title and confirmation of possession over the suit lands measuring 2.79 acres of land appertaining to Khata No. 82, plot Nos. 308 and 310 of village Purnadih, P.S. Daltonganj, fully described in Schedules A to C of the plaint. Further case of the plaintiffs-appellants is that the plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 are the recorded raiyat of village Purnadih and Rajderwa having 1/6th share in the lands of Khata No. 55 and entire in Khata Nos. 75 of village Purnadih. The plaintiff Nos. 4 and 6 had Dar Raiyati interest in village Rajderwa and the plaintiff No. 4 purchased raiyati interest in the year, 1949 of khata No. 8 of village Rajderwa. Further case of the plaintiffs-appellants is that during the cadastral survey gairmazarua Malik lands measuring 0.89 acres of Khata No. 81 of village Purnadih was recorded under Khewat Nos. 6 as Samilat Malikan and the lands measuring 2.90 acres of plot No. 310 was recorded as parti Garha and parti Kadin respectively. Further case of the plaintiffs-appellants is that the plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2, with the help of plaintiff No. 3, reclaimed 10 decimals of land of plot Nos. 308 and 58 decimals of land in plot No. 301 and the plaintiff No. 3 reclaimed 1.11 acres in plot No. 310 and the plaintiff No. 4 reclaimed 1 acre of land in both the plots and as such the plaintiffs claimed their title on the basis of reclamation. It is further alleged that the plaintiffs, filed a petition for settlement of land reclaimed by them being Case No. 44/62-63 and recommendation was made for settlement but the defendant- respondent taking advantage of the situation got a proceeding initiated under Section 145, Cr PC with respect to the portion of lands of plot Nos. 308 and 310 being Misc. Case No. 1062/78, which was decided against the plaintiffs declaring them out of possession "over the lands.

3. The defendant-respondent appeared and contested the suit by filing written statement and controverted the allegations made in the different paragraphs of the plaint stating inter alia, that the plaintiffs have no right, title, interest and possession over the suit lands. It was further stated that the defendant had reclaimed the suit lands more than 45 years ago with the permission of the Ex-landlord and got receipt for the same and after vesting of Zamindari demand was opened in their name and since then the defendant- respondent was in possession of the lands and possession under Section 145, Cr PC was rightly declared in favour of the defendant-respondent. It was further stated that the plaintiffs have not proved their possession over the suit lands within 12 years prior to the filing of the suit and as such the suit itself is barred by limitation.

4. The learned trial Court framed issued, recorded evidence of both the sides both oral and documentary and after hearing the parties decreed the suit filed by the plaintiffs-appellants, vide judgment and decree dated 25.5.1989 and being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree, the defendant-respondent preferred Title Appeal No. 35/89, which was allowed by the learned 6th Additional District Judge, Palamau, vide its judgment and decree dated 13.6.1990, against which the plaintiffs-appellants filed this appeal.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the appellate Court correctly came to a finding after assessing the