JUDGMENT :

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants.

2. No one turns up on behalf of the respondents; hence, this appeal is heard and disposed of ex-parte against the respondents.

3. This Second Appeal, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 28.05.2012 passed by learned Principal District Judge, Sahibganj in Title Appeal No.41 of 2009 whereby and where under by the judgment of concurrence, the learned Principal District Judge, Sahibganj dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment and decree passed by the trial court being the court of Subordinate Judge-III, Sahibganj in Title Suit No.11 of 2007 dated 30.06.2009.

4. The case of the plaintiffs in brief is that the plaintiffs filed the Title Suit No.11 of 2007 with a prayer for declaration of their right, title, interest and possession over the schedule-A property and also for their confirmation of their possession over the suit property and if it is found that plaintiffs have been forcibly dispossessed then a decree for restoration of possession through thee machinery of court be passed. The plaintiffs also made a prayer that the defendant first party be permanently