The main legal point established in the judgment is the effect of conflicting entries in the cadastral survey and revisional survey records of right, and the limitation for filing a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession.

M. V. EQBAL, J.

( 1 ) THE defendants are the appellants. The appeal is against the judgment of reversal. The plaintiffs-respondents filed a suit for declaration of title over the suit land and also for declaration that the revisional survey entry of the name of defendant No. 1 in respect of the suit land is wrong and erroneous. The suit was dismissed by the munsif, Koderma being Title Suit No. 27/84 holding that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief.

( 2 ) THE appellate court reversed the judgment in Title Appeal. No. 42/88, set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and decreed the suit.

( 3 ) PLAINTIFFS case is that he is the settled raiyait of village Jainagar having ancestral land and house. The suit land under Khata No. 222 stands in the name of Guli Sonar and Meghan sonar, father and uncle of the plaintiff which was duly recorded in the cadastral survey record of rights. The recorded tenant, Meghan Sonar died issueless and the entire property of Khata no. 222 devolved upon his brother. Guli Sonar, the father of the plaintiff. After the death of the father of the plaintiff the land of Khata no. 222 alleged to have devolved upon him being the sole and rightful owner and he is in possession of the said land. Plaintiffs further case is that the land of plot No. 1120 having an area of 3 decimals, plot No. 1125 having an area of 2 decimals and plot No 1126 having an area of 8 decimals and plot No. 225 having an area of 2. 20 acres appertain to Khata no. 222. It is stated that plot Nos. 1120 and 1125 were recorded as Makan in the records of rights in which the ancestors of the plaintiff were residing and after their death the plaintiff is residing. Further case of the plaintiff is that revisional survey was held in the year, 1996 and in that survey new plots have been carved out from the old plot Nos 1120, 1125 and 1126 and have been recorded as New Khata no 686 The defendants had their house in village, Jainagar on their raiyaiti land which fell down and, as such, the defendant, Chaman sonar approached the plaintiff and requested him to let out the suit house on rent The plaintiff let out his two rooms in his house to defendant No. 1 on monthly rent of Rs. 80/- in the year, 1960. When the revisional survey started and final publication was made in 1966 the suit house was illegally and wrongly recorded in the name of Laxman Sonar as one share and Chaman Sonar as one share. Plaintiffs case is that the revisional survey record of rights is apparently wrong and erroneous

( 4 ) DEFENDANTS case, on the other hand, is that the suit is barred by limitation, acquiscience and estoppel. Besides other defences, it is stated that the land of Khata No. 22 of village Jainagar was recorded in the cadastral survey in the name of Guli Sonar and meghan Sonar but they were not the exclusive owner nor they were in exclusive possession. In fact, said khata belonged to Mama Sonar, the common ancestor of the plaintiff and the defendants. Mama Sonar had four sons. Jagarnath Sonar, Daulat Sonar, Manik Sonar and Khosi Sonar. Jagarnath Sonar died issue-less and then the three brothers formed joint family of which Daulat Sonar, the eldest brother, was the karta. After Daulat Sonar, his son, Churu Sonar and then Guli Sonar and meghan Sonar began to manage the property and, accordingly, their names were entered in the records of rights as inspite of survey entry the other members of the joint family including the defendants ancestors continuously exercised their right, title, interest and possession over the suit property. After the cadastral survey there was disruption in the joint family and in family partition a portion of the residential house along with a portion of other property came in the share of the defendants father who continuously lived in the said land and property and after the death of their father, the defendants have been residing. That being the situation the revisional survey record was rightly prepared in the