The settlement order, revenue records, and lack of evidence supporting adverse possession claims were crucial in establishing the plaintiffs' continuous possession and defeating the defendants' claims.

JUDGMENT :

By the Court:- Heard the parties.

2. This second appeal has been preferred under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure against the concurrent judgment and decree dated 07.05.2008 passed by the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Garhwa in Title Appeal No.38 of 1998 whereby and where under, the learned first appellate court has dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment and decree passed by the learned Sub-Judge-I, Garhwa in Title Suit No.12 of 1988 on 18.07.1998 whereby and where under, the learned trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs filed with a prayer for declaration that the suit lands are the raiyati lands of the plaintiffs coming in their continuous possession since the time of their ancestors and the defendants or their ancestors had neither any right nor title nor possession in respect thereof and if it is found that the plaintiffs have been dispossessed from the suit land by the orders passed in Misc. Case No.459/77 and Criminal Revision Case No.143/85 on any date they be ordered to be put in possession of the same.

3. The case of the plaintiffs in brief is that Sheo Sahai Singh, a tribal, chero by caste owned and possessed lands in village Obra and during last cadastral survey and settlement operations before filing of the suit, the suit land was recorded in the name of Sheo Sahai Singh as a kaiyami raiyati. The plaintiffs are the great grandson of Sheo Sahai Singh. It is further the case of the plaintiffs that Sheo Sahai Singh continued in possession of the suit lands and after his death, his son Sanpa Singh continued in possession of the suit land. Sanpa Singh was succeeded by his two sons, Patan Singh and Budhan Singh. Budhan Singh is the father of the plaintiffs. Patan Singh died in the year 1930 without any male issue so, Budhan Singh is the only surviving coparcener continued to own and possess the entire properties inherited by their father. Budhan Singh in the year 1932 sold the entire lands appertaining to khata no.170 to Mahabir Singh, S/o Dhupa Singh of the village and put him in possession thereof while retained the suit land in his possession and cultivation. Budhan Singh died living behind his widow Most. Biphani Devi and his two sons Dewa Singh being the plaintiff no.1 and Janan Singh being the plaintiff no.2 who succeeded the suit properties upon the death of Budhan Singh. The plaintiffs converted the tand land to paddy growing lands at considerable cost and amalgamated the land of khata no.98 with one another. Upon the death of Budhan Singh, the plaintiffs paid rent of the suit land to Jagdeo Sao and Sahdeo Sao Kasarwani till the vesting of their intermediary interest into the State of Bihar under Bihar Land Reform Act, 1950. The defendant and their brother late Bishwanath Keshri in the year 1971 for the first time in collusion with the police got a proceeding initiated under Section 144 Cr.P.C. in respect of part of suit land against the plaintiffs and during the course of the said proceeding, the plaintiffs could know that defendants fraudulently created evidence in order to lay a false claim over the suit land and fabricated resettlement of only 0.28 acres of land, half of the suit land and got them included in the allotment of civil court partition suit in which the plaintiffs or their ancestors were not impleaded as parties and the same being collusive and fraudulent suit. It is further pleaded that the plaintiffs denied that none of their ancestors surrendered any part of the suit land. The defendants fraudulently procured assessment of rent order followed by ‘M’ form without any enquiry on the spot, without any ‘istahar’ having been published in the village. In the year 1976 as the defendants and their brothers went to take forceful possession of the suit land, a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. in respect of the suit land was drawn up and the rule was made absolute against the defendant nos.1 and 2 and the rule was vacated in favour of the plaintiffs. Being aggriev