JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta, learned counsel assisted by Mr. Avish Anand, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants.

2. The appellants have preferred this second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 22.09.2016 passed by the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-II, Seraikella Kharsawan in Title Appeal No.12/2009 whereby the appeal was dismissed and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 28.03.2009 and 13.04.2009 respectively passed by the learned Munsif, Seraikella in Title Suit No.16/02/Title Suit No.07/07.

3. It was case of the appellants/plaintiffs that they are the residents of Mauza Jhabri, P.S. Chandil, District Seraikella Kharsawan. It was further pleaded that Churku Mahato was common ancestor of the parties and died having considerable landed property at mouza Jhabri. It was further pleaded that Churku Mahato died leaving behind three sons namely Dhanaram, Chhota Ghasiram and Chhutua Mahato who inherited the properties of their father in equal share. It was further pleaded that since Dhanaram Mahato died prior to Cadestral Survey Settlement leaving behind four sons namely Mansa, Nuna Muju and Holu so the successors of Dhanaram Mahato getting share in the property of his father in equal shares. The main contention of the appellants/plaintiffs are that the properties left behind by Churku Mahato the common ancestor of the parties were jointly recorded in the name of Chota Ghasiram, Chhutua Mahato both sons of Churku and Mansa. Nunu, Muju and Holu all sons of Dhanaram Mahato in raiyati kayami right in Khata No.44 of mouza Jhabri in Cadestral Survey Settlement Operation of the year 1911. Further pleaded that the aforesaid properties were all along joint among the co-sharer in whose name the records of rights were prepared and there were never been any partition by metes and bounds and the possession of the record right was according to convenience some separately and some jointly and they were cultivating land jointly. It was further case of the appellants/plaintiffs that R.S. Settlement Operation which was finally published in the year 1963 the aforesaid properties of C.S. Khatiyan No.44 was recorded in Khata No.22, 209 and 418 of mouza Jhabri. The appellants/plaintiffs contention is that in R.S. Khatiyan No.22 there is erroneous entry in the record of right in the name of only Kanhai, Makhan, Nagen and three sons of Muju only and name of other co-sharers ought to have also been recorded. It was further contended that in R.S. Khatiyan No.209, it has erroneously been recorded only in the name of son of Nunu, Muju and Holu and the name of legal heirs of Mansa, Chhota Ghasiram ought to have been recorded therein. It was further contended that in R.S. Khatiyan No.418 area 8.86 was erroneously recorded solely in the name of Sushila only and the name of legal heirs of Mansa, Nunu, Muju and Holu ought to have also been recorded therein. It has been further contended that in erroneous entry, co-sharers could not detect the aforesaid preparation of record of right of suit property so, they could not file any objection before survey authorities for correction of the same and the entire suit properties described in Schedule B was still joint properties of the parties and there being never any partition of the same by metes and bounds. It was further pleaded that in the year 1955 Gajadhar Mahato husband of defendant no.18 and further the defendant no.19 to 22 transferred 14 Kathas 14 3/8 dhur land within C.S. Plot No.688 and land in area 8 Kathas 11 1/8 Dhur Plot No.950 concerning C.S. Khatiyan No.44 of Mouza Jhabri to Kanhai Mahato and others through registered Sale Deed No.5496 dated 13th July 1955. Further in the year 1956, Defendant Nos.13, 14 and 15 minor through their natural guardian Ratuli Mahatani sold land of C.S. Khata No.44 to Bolai Mahato and others by Registered Deed No.3582 dated 27th April 1956. It was further pleaded that the cause of action for this suit the appellants/plaintiffs in th