Heard the parties.

2. This Appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and decree dated 19.08.2008 and 30.08.2008 respectively, passed and signed by Additional Judicial Commissioner, Fast Track Court, Khunti in connection with Title Appeal No. 65/2004 whereby Judgment dated 24.07.2004 and Decree dated 06.08.2004, passed and signed by learned Munsif, Khunti in connection with Title Partition Suit No. 19 of 1999, has been affirmed and the appeal stood dismissed.

3. The appellants (hereinafter referred as defendents) were defendants in the original Title Partition Suit No. 19 of 1999 whereas respondents (hereinafter referred as plaintiffs) were plaintiffs in the said Title Partition Suit filed in the Court of Munsif, Khunti. It appears that the plaintiff had filed a suit for partition in the Court of Munsif claiming 1/3rd share in favour of plaintiffs no. 1 and 2, 1/3rd share in favour of plaintiff no. 3 and rest 1/3rd share in favour of defendants in the suit property.

4. The case of the plaintiffs is that the land measuring an area of 3.69 Acres out of R.S. Plot No. 626 of village Janumpiri was settled by virtue of Hukumnama dated 10.02.1945 by Manki Khetro Mohan Singh. It is further case of the plaintiffs that they reclaimed adjoining plot near their settled land and prepared the same for cultivation as Korkar and after that they came in possession of total area of 5.45 acres. In the latest survey which was in process, the landlord Manki Fani Bhushan Singh managed to get the suit land recorded in his khata as Gairmajurua. When parties to the suit came to know about the entry so recorded, they filed objection and proceeding under Section 83 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act was initiated. The Revenue Officer recorded that there is unity of title in the suit land and held in his order that Muchiram Mahato and Haripado (both sons of Lakshman Mahato) will have one share. Duti Mahato and Motilal, both sons of Sidam Mahto (plaintiffs no. 1 and 2) will have one share and Dilip Mahato, son of Chaita Mahato will have one share in the property.

5. Being aggrieved by the orders of Revenue Officer passed under Section 83 of Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as CNT Act), Muchi Ram and others filed Revision under Section 89 of the CNT Act before the Settlement Officer and there also the Settlement Officer ordered that the names of the parties be mentioned in the latest Khata as per their share. The report of Amin was also indicating a fact that there is unity of title amongst the parties regarding the said land.

6. On the other hand the defendants have claimed that the land measuring an area of 3.69 Acres was settled in the name of their father Lakshman Mahato on 26.09.1945 (Ext. C) by virtue of Hukumnama granted by General Manager, Encumbered Estate, Ranchi. Rent for these lands were regularly paid by the defendants. The part of the land in suit got irrigation facility and canal Parcha has been regularly issued by the concerned Department in the name of Lachu @ Lakshman Mahato and water tax too was paid by the defendants. Though Hukumnama was granted for 3.69 Acres of land but the defendants reclaimed more or less 5.45 Acres of land without any objection from any quarter and brought the same under their ownership by enjoying cultivation and possession. Apart from that further case of the defendants is that they acquired good and valid title by reason of said settlement held in favour of their father. They have perfected their title by adverse possession openly and adversely to the knowledge of all including plaintiffs and their predecessor in interest for more than 50 years.

7. The defendants have made out a case that genealogy of so-called settlees given in Schedule – A of the plaint is incomplete because Lal Mahato had five sons. The said land was never settled by any Hukumnama in favour of Sidam and Chaita rather it was settled in the name of Lakshman @ Lachu (father of defendants).

8. The learned Munsif, after consider