JUDGMENT

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J. - Heard Mr. Sachi Nandan Das, learned counsel for the appellants and Ms. Pooja Kumar, learned A.C. to Sr. S.C. III for the respondents.

2. The present second appeal has been preferred by the appellants for questioning the legality and validity of the judgment and decree dated 30.09.2015 passed in Title Appeal No. 3 of 2009 by the learned District Judge-II, Seraikella-Kharsawan whereby he has been affirmed the judgment decree dated 17.01.2009 passed by the learned Munsif, Seraikella-Kharsawan in Title Suit No. 20 of 2005.

3. The case of the appellant before the trial court was that one Pitamber Dutta of Chandil was the tenure holder of Mauza Kadamdih and his name appears in the record of rights published in the year 1911 as khewatdar of khewat no. 4/3. The aforesaid tenure holder executed a deed of sale in favour of Vishswnath Dawn on 28th February,1912 vide sale deed no. 112 and transferred some property including a Tank and its Arh for consideration of Rs. 1300/-. Vishwanath Dawn the grand-father of the plaintiff used to possess the land purchased by him morefully described in schedule ''A; by the plaintiff. In the suit the Tank and Arh is in dispute and described in schedule ''B'' of the plaint and hereinafter referred as suit property. The suit property was all along in possession of the grand-father and father of the appellant and this appellant stopped into the possession of the suit property. It is however, the case of the appellant that the tank was being used for cultivating and also rear and catch fish in the suit property. After the death of grand-father and father, the appellant became in possession of all the properties including this suit property. The plaintiff used to possess the Arh of the Tank which contains trees planted by his grand-father and in vacant part of the Arh used to grew seasonable vegetables. The possession of the suit property remained with the appellant including his predecessors since last 90 years with the full knowledge of the State Government and thereby the appellants also perfected the right, title and interest over the suit property. On 21.04.2005 a notice was sent to the appellant to attain the Court of S.D.O., Chandil along with relevant papers of the Tank. Thereafter, the appellant rushed to the Circle Officer, Chandil to find out the real facts and on enquiry he found that the Tank and its Arh suit property in R.S. Operation wrongly recorded in the name of State of Bihar now Jharkhand under Khata No. 112 mauza Kadamdih in Khatian plot no. 271 shown it''s Arh. It is further submitted that the case of the appellant is that prior to 05.05.2005 the appellant has got no knowledge about such wrong entry as his possession over the suit property never interfered before the 05.05.2005. Thereafter, the appellant sent notice u/s 80 C.P.C. on 20.05.2005. The cause of action of the present suit arose on and from 21.04.2005 and 05.05.2005.

4. On appearance, defendants filed their written statement and stating that the there is no cause of action of the suit. The suit is barred by limitation, estoppel, waiver and acquiescence. This suit is suffered from non-joinder and mis-joinder. The description of the suit land is vague and incomplete. The suit land is described properly and fully. There has been no service of notice u/s 80 C.P.C. as required under C.P.C. The suit property is grossly under valued. The total boundary provided in schedule A and there is no mentioning of areas of the plots or the tank and the Arh in the plaint. It is further submitted that the case of the defendant is that in suit property there is no mentioning of area plot no. 271 of Khata No. 112. Nowhere it is specifically stated which old plots have been reported as R.S. Plot. The suit land suffers seriously from the defects of identity. The Tank was never come in possession of the appellant and his forefathers. It is incorrect that they used to rear and catch fish in the Tank. The appellant ha