JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.

1. Heard Mr. R.N. Sahay, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants.

2. The appellants has preferred this second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2015 and 08.12.2015 respectively passed by District Judge-1, Giridih in T.A. No. 15 of 2014 affirming the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2014 and 12.02.2014 respectively.

3. The appellants instituted the suit for partition with respect of land comprises under Khata no. 6 of village-Padamtola, appertaining to plot nos.75 and 76 recorded previously in the name of Devi Mian, who transferred the said land through registered sale deed in favour of Bibi Ritia (ancestor of defendants) and one Gani Mohamman (ancestor of plaintiffs). The appellants/plaintiffs made a case before the court below that Devi Mian had acquired the land of khata no.6 an area measuring 8 acres from the ex-landlord by settlement and the said Devi Mian transferred the said land in favour of Bibi Ritia and Gani Mohammad being the daughter-in-law and grandson through registered sale deed and since thereafter Bibi Ritia and Gani Mohammad were enjoining the said land jointly. It was further case of the appellants/plaintiffs that Bibi Ritia died leaving behind two sons namely, Sakur Mian and Rajjak Mian (Defendant nos.1 and 2) who inherited the said land through their mother. It was further case of the appellants/plaintiffs that Gani Mohammad had purchased the said land along with Bibi Ritia by paying half consideration money and in this way plaintiff being the surviving legal heirs of Gani Mohammad is entitled to have half share in the said property. It was further case of the appellants/plaintiffs that name of Bibi Ritia and Gani Mohammad have also been mutated in the office of State and they are paying rent jointly. It was further case of the appellants/plaintiffs that due to efflux of time plaintiffs being the brother of Gani Mohammad fell inconvenience in payment of rent for the said land, hence they demanded partition to the suit land but the defendant evaded their demand. It was further case of the appellants/plaintiffs that plaintiffs have decided to get the land bifurcated and for this they filed a petition before the Anchaladhikari Jamua and in pursuant to the said petition Halka Karmchari was directed to submit inquiry report and after verification of spot Halka Karmchari submitted his report on 18.01.2008 thereby submitting that the lands had been acquired in the name of Bibi Ritia and Gani Mohammad and their names being entered in the registered-II of the said village. After perusing the Revenue records, sale deed and inquiry report, Anchaladhikari Jamua vide case non 368/2007-2008 was pleased to bifurcate the rent of the appellants/plaintiffs from the defendants and accordingly correction slip was issued and thereafter appellants/plaintiffs were paying rent only for 4 acres and obtained the rent receipts under khata no. 6 plot nos. 75 and 76. It was further case of the appellants/plaintiffs that defendant nos.1 and 2 in order to grab the entire land manufactured a forged Hukumnama in the name of Bibi Ritia with respect of the suit land and tried to remove the word (wagairah) from the page no. 34/1 of Register-II.

4. The respondents/defendants filed Mutation Appeal bearing no.148/2008-09 before the court of L.R.D.C, Giridih in which respondents/defendants have filed forged Hukumnama and claimed the entire 8 acres of the plot no. 75 and learned L.R.D.C. has committed error in passing the order in favour of the defendant nos. 1 and 2 and thereby directed the Anchaladhikari, Jamua to remove the name of Gani Mohammad from page no. 34/1 of Register-II of village Padamtola. The order passed by the L.R.D.C in Mutation Appeal no. 148/08-09 dated 13.02.2010 liable to be declared illegal order. The appellants/plaintiffs requested the respondents/defendants for partition of the land but they refused, hence the suit was instituted.

5. The respondents/defendants appe