D.N. UPADHYAY, J.:

1. This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs/appellants against the judgment dated 19th February, 2002 and decree dated 7th March, 2002 passed and signed by learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Hazaribagh in connection with Title Appeal No.51 of 1994, whereby judgment dated 20th September, 1994 and decree dated 30th September, 1994 passed and signed by 2nd Additional Munsif, Hazaribagh in connection with Partition Suit No.80 of 1989 have been affirmed.

2. The plaintiffs had filed partition suit for separating their Takhtas in respect of 4.39¾ acres of land according to registered sale deeds dated 17th June, 1970, 27th February, 1980, 22nd May, 1967, 7th March, 1967 and 14th September, 1972 on the basis of averments made in the plaint, which are stated herein below.

3. The land under Khata No.105 of village Chatar Mandu, P.S. Ramgarh, P.S. No.116, District Hazaribagh was originally recorded in the names of Surjan Mahto, Fuchan Mahto and Ghuju Mahto. Land pertaining to Khata No.125 of the same village was recorded in the names of Jitan Mahto, Mithun Mahto, Bigan Mahto, Bodhiya Mahto, Sukhan Mahto and Fuchan Mahto, whereas land pertaining to Khata No.55 of the same village was recorded in the names of Jitan Mahto, Surjan Mahto, Fuchan Mahto and Ghuju Mahto. All the recorded tenants died one after another. Sukhan Mahto died in the year 1939, leaving behind his widow Most. Gahni and daughter-Bhukhli. Surjan Mahto during his lifetime brought the father of Plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 to his house and they started living as Gharjamai because Surjan Mahto was not having male child. He got his daughter-Bhukhli married with father of Plaintiff Nos.2 and 3. The Plaintiff Nos.3 and 4 had taken birth in house of Surjan. Most. Gahni transferred her share, pertaining to land described in Schedule-B of the plaint, in favour of her daughter-Bhukhli by virtue of registered sale deed dated 25th June, 1940 (Ext. 1/F). After execution of the sale deed, Bhukhli got the land mutated in her name and started enjoying possession over the same and also by paying rent to the Government. Bhukhli executed a deed of mortgage in favour of Uttim Mahto for five years in the year 1946. Thereafter, she again transferred her share pertaining to Khata No.125 of Schedule-B land by registered deed of sale dated 27th February, 1980 in favour of Plaintiff Nos.1 and 2, who are none else, but sons of Bhukhli. They got their names mutated and started paying rent to erstwhile State of Bihar.

4. On 17th June, 1970 said Bhukhli (daughter of Surjan Mahto) transferred her share in the land (described in Schedule-C of the plaint) pertaining to Khata Nos.125 and 55 of the same village Chatar Mandu in favour of her two sons i.e. Plaintiff Nos.3 and 4 and, accordingly, Plaintiff Nos.3 and 4 also got their names mutated in the revenue record and started paying rent to the State.

Though the plaintiffs had purchased the land according to share of the recorded tenants, but the properties were not partitioned by metes and bounds and the parties were cultivating the land according to their convenience. Since the lands were under their joint possession and there was unity of title, the plaintiffs thought it to get partitioned.

5. Laldhari Mahto, Barku Mahto, Sarkhu Mahto and Reli Mahto, the descendants of recorded tenant-Fuchan Mahto, also executed two sale deeds on 7th March, 1967 and 22nd May, 1967 (land described in Schedule-D of the plaint) in favour of Plaintiff Nos.3 and 4, which land they got mutated in their names and started paying rent to the State of Bihar.

The descendants of Jitan Mahto, Mithun Mahto, Bigan Mahto and Bodhiya Mahto had separated themselves and partitioned their respective shares according to their separate Kabjawari and as such, they were not made parties to the suit. Defendant No.7 was a minor, who had been represented through his natural guardian, his mother-Defendant No.6 and his interest was not adverse against minor. It was conten