JUDGMENT :

GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

1. Appellant is the plaintiff and the appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree of reversal passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Seraikella in Title Appeal No. 11 of 1999 by which the plaintiff’s suit has been dismissed.

2. The plaintiff/appellant filed a suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession, in the alternative recovery of possession and for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the suit property as detailed in Schedule-C of the plaint. A further prayer has been made for declaration that survey entries in the record of Rights made in the year 1964 and of 1983 with respect of the suit properties were wrong.

3. The suit land measuring was previously under the ownership and management of Saraikella Raj Estate and in the year 1945 Maharaja Aditya Pratap Singh Dev was the ruling chief of this Estate and he used to settle the land for the purpose of cultivation and for various development works by grant of Agya Patra. On 27.5.1945, he settled the suit land for agriculture to Raghu Nath Das by Agya Patra. The settlee reclaimed the land and made it fit for going various crops and also constructed a house in a portion of the land. Raghu Nath Das was the devotee of the plaintiff and by virtue of a Deed of Trust dedicated the suit land to the plaintiff vide Deed No. 8859 Dated 10.12.1969. For better management of the plaintiffs’ land the trustees were:

(I) Chaman Singh

(II) Swaroop Singh

(III) Makhan Singh

(IV) General Secretary of Radha Soami Satsang

4. According to the instrument of accession the estate of Saraikela was made part of the District of Singhbhum of the State of Bihar. After the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 (Hereinafter called BLR Act) came into operation the proprietary interest of Raja of Saraikella vested in the state government except the agricultural Raiyati land settled by the Maharaja.

5. During the survey settlement operation of 1959, the suit land was also surveyed and the portion of it were recorded under Khata No. 44 in Kyami right of mouza-Kuluptanga, Survey Khata No. 130, Plot No. 577 having an area of 0.82 acres with respect to the aforesaid land, the rent was assessed in the Rent Fixation Case No. 71/72, u/s 85 of the CNT Act and rent was fixed. The land of Raghu Nath Das under Khata No. 81, Plot No. 598, Gora 2, having an area of 6.21 acres was wrongly recorded in the Khata of Anabad Bihar Sarkar in the possession of Makhan Singh showing illegal possession since 1946. He had made a false representation and got the said Plot No. 598 recorded under Khata No. 81 in the survey settlement of 1952-59, finally published on 13th December, 1961 in his forcible possession since 1946. R.S. Plot No. 573, 598, 579 and portion of Plot No. 576 having total area of 18.30 acres have been carved out from the old C.S. Abdul (1925-27) survey Plot Nos. 195 and 214 and not from Plot No. 157. It is averred that the said Makhan Singh in collusion with the survey settlement staffs collusively got Khata 152 recorded in his name and his brother without having any right title interest and possession therein against which the plaintiff has filed a title suit. Similarly other lands were recorded in the name of State of Bihar and in the illegal possession of Raghu Nath Das since 1946. R.S. Plot Nos. 573, 598, 579 having an area of 1.74 acres, 3.42 acres and 2.52 acres were wrongly recorded in the name of the State of Bihar and Khata No. 81 wrongly shown be in the illegal possession of Raghunath Das. Similarly 18.30 acres carved out of the plot 576 was also included in the name of Khata No. 81 in the State of Bihar.

6. The sum and substance of the plaintiff’s case is that the predecessor in interest was in possession of the suit land and wrong entries were made in the Record of Rights published after survey in the year 1964 and 1983 in the name of State of Bihar which is claimed to be that of the pl