( 1. ) THIS second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed by trial Court and the appeal has also been dismissed by the impugned judgment and decree.

( 2. ) NO exhaustive statement of facts are required to be narrated for the disposal of this second appeal. Suffice it to say that three persons namely Chunnilal, Ramlal and Nanoolal filed suit against banshilal, Leelakishan, Ram Gopal and State of Madhya Pradesh. The plaintiffs prayed that in the suit property they are having right, title and interest and are possessing the suit property and defendants be restrained from interfering in their possession. It has also been prayed that the plaintiffs are having 1/5 share each in the suit property and accordingly, they are entitled to get their name mutated in the revenue record and the disputed land cannot be declared as surplus under M. P. Ceiling On Agricultural Holding act, 1960 (in short the Act) to the extent of plaintiffs share.

( 3. ) THE case of plaintiff, as borne out from their plaint and the evidence placed on record, is that Shivlal whose wife is Phula Bai was having three sons namely Leelakishan (defendant No. 2), dhanlal and Khushilal. Dhanlal was having five sons namely banshilal (defendant No. 1), Chunnilal (Plaintiff No. 1), Ramlal (Plaintiff No. 2), Nanoolal (Plaintiff No. 3) and one more son bhanwarji who had died and his son is Ram Gopal (defendant no. 3 ). According to the plaintiff, defendants 1 and 2 namely banshilal and Leelakishan and plaintiffs were having joint share in "portion of the entire land which was declared surplus under the act. Plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 are the real brothers and the father of defendant No. 1 and plaintiffs namely Dhanlal and father of defendant No. 2-Leelakishan were real brothers. The entire suit property, description whereof has been mentioned in para-1 of the plaint, is of the grand-father of plaintiffs namely Shivlal and the same was also recorded as such in the revenue record. The suit property, description whereof has been mentioned in para-1 of the plaint, is ancestral property and defendant No. 1 namely Banshilal was the eldest brother amongst the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs were minor and were the joint owner along with defendant No. 1banshilal and were jointly having " share in the entire land, description whereof has been mentioned in para-1 of the plaint. The plaintiffs were residing under the guardianship of their elder brother defendant No. 1-Banshilal. Since Banshilal was the eldest brother, " share of the land was recorded in his name in the revenue record, though the plaintiffs and defendant No. 1-Banshilal were having 1/5 share each in " portion of the entire property. Very feebly the plaintiffs have pleaded about the factum of acquiring title on the suit property by adverse possession.

( 4. ) IN para-5 of the plaint, it has been pleaded that out of 34. 79 acres of land, the competent authority under the Act declared 11. 69 acres of land to be surplus and, hence, the rights of plaintiffs are jeopardized. The decision of the competent authority first came into the knowledge of plaintiffs on 31/5/1976 and, hence the present suit has been filed.

( 5. ) DEFENDANT No. 4/state of M. P. refuted the plaint averments by filing the written statement. The stand of State is that holder was Banshilal (defendant No. 1) whose name was recorded in the revenue record and rightly the land 11. 69 acres has been declared surplus by the competent authority vide order dated 25/2/1976. A plea of limitation has also been raised in the written statement that the suit is barred by time. The factum of suit property being ancestral of plaintiffs and defendant No. 1-Banshilal has also been denied.

( 6. ) DEFENDANT No. 1-Banshilal filed written statement but admitted the entire claim of plaintiffs.

( 7. ) LEARNED trial Court framed necessary issues. The plaintiffs adduced the evidence. However, defendant No. 4/state of M. P. did not adduce any evidence. Le