JUDGMENT :

GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

1. Appellants are the plaintiffs who have preferred the instant appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the 4th Additional District Judge, Hazaribagh in Title Appeal No. 59 of 1985 against the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No. 70 of 1980 by which the trial court judgment was reversed and the plaintiffs’ suit was dismissed.

2. Since this is an old case therefore, the parties will be referred by their original placement in the suit and will include the legal representatives substituted at different stages.

3. The plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of right, title, interest and possession over the suit land fully detailed in Schedule B and C of the plaint and a prayer for evicting defendant no. 2 from Schedule B property after declaring him to be tenant of defendant no. 1.

4. The claim of title and for possession over the suit land of the plaintiffs is with respect to old plot no 653 recorded under Khata No. 48 of Village Nawal Sahi. According to the plaintiffs, plot nos. 653 and other plots were recorded under Khata No. 48 as Gair Mazurwa Khas in the name of the then land lord Thakur Tulsi Narayan Singh. One Thami Pandey with the consent of the landlord reclaimed 12 decimals of C.S. Plot No. 653 and other plots and the ex-landlord settled 12 decimals of land in favour of Thami Pandey by sada Hukumnama in 10 magh 1335 Fasli. Thami Pandey continued the further reclamation of the aforesaid plot 653 and remained in peaceful possession. Upon vesting, name of Thami Pandey was mutated and entered in the tenant’s ledger vide rent assessment case no. 35/91 of 1963-64 under khata no. 48 and 0.06 acres of land as detailed Schedule A was mutated in his name in Register II (Ext5). Thami Pandey sold 3 decimals of old C.S. Plot no. 653 (new Plot No. 1222) in favour of Hiraman and Heman Choudhary by registered deed dated 11.09.1964 (Ext.1). The land was duly mutated in their name (Ext.5/A). Thereafter, said Hiraman and Heman Choudhary sold 3 decimals (Schedule B which is Eastern portion of Sch A land) to plaintiff no. 1 by registered deed dated 17.1.1977 (Ext.7). Thami Pandey died in the year 1970 leaving behind his widow Kaushalya Devi who succeeded to the properties of Thami Pandey. Kaushalya Devi sold 3 decimals of old C.S. Plot No. 653 (new Plot No. 1224) (Schedule C) in favour of plaintiff nos. 2 and 3 by a registered deed dated 14.10.1971 (Ext.1/a). Their names were mutated in register II (Ext.5). Accordingly, the plaintiffs acquired title with respect to Schedule B and C properties.

The whole plot 653 which measured 1.74 acres was re-plotted into several plots such as plot nos. 1222, 1224 and other plots were brought under different khata nos. 115 and 116 from original khata no. 48.

5. It is further case of the plaintiffs that defendants have no right or title over plot no. 653 but they had been trying to oust the plaintiffs from it. Defendant no. 2 was inducted as a tenant in the said premises by Hiraman Choudhary from whom Plaintiff no. 1 purchased the house and land.

However, the defendants without having any title started to interfere. Hence the suit was filed.

6. Main contesting defendant is defendant no. 2 Awadh Kishore Prasad who has contested the suit by filing the written statement, whereas defendant no. 1 (vendor of D2) has filed the written statement wherein the written statement filed by defendant no. 2 has been adopted.

7. It is the case of the defendants that there was no reclamation and settlement as claimed by the plaintiffs. R.S. Plot nos. 1222 and 1224 were mutated in the name of Nasir Khan, who was paying rent to the state. Nasir khan had constructed a house over 3 decimals of old plot no. 653 (new plot no. 1224) and sold it to defendant no. 2 by a registered deed dated 17.01.1977 (Ext.A). It is also averred that the Revenue Authority did not order for mutation of the name of Thami Pandey in respect of 0.03 acre of land of new plot no. 1224 which is a portion of ol