ORDER

This second appeal has been filed by appellants/plaintiffs 1-2 challenging the judgement and decree dated 27.11.2013 passed by 2nd Additional District Judge, Maihar, District Satna in Civil Appeal No.41-A/2013 whereby confirming the judgement and decree dated dated 06.05.2011 passed by Civil Judge Class-I, Maihar, District-Satna in Civil Suit No.67-A/2010 whereby suit filed by plaintiffs/appellants -Santosh Kumar Sen, Lallu Sen and Lalmani, Bhagwat, Govind, Sohanlal, Rajendra Prasad (respondents 7-11) has been dismissed.

2. The plaintiffs instituted a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession against respondents/defendants 1-6 with regard to agricultural land survey No.973/1 and 973/2 total area 18 bigha 10 Biswa and survey No.974 area 7 Biswa situated in Village Podi, Tehsil Maihar with the allegations that in the revenue record, the land is recorded in the name of defendants and they are also in possession. Placing reliance upon genealogical tree mentioned in para-2 of the plaint, it is alleged that the disputed land is ancestral land of the plaintiffs which is wrongly recorded in the name of defendants, and they have also partitioned the land. This land was recorded in the name of Bharosa and after his death the same was recorded in the name of defendants’ father/ ascendants Surajdeen @ Lupurra and Mangal Sen. It is alleged that in fact ancestors of defendants were residing with Bharosa, therefore, they got mutated their name fraudulently and at that time, the plaintiffs were residing out of village. On the basis of false entry, the defendants are restraining the plaintiffs from going on the suit land. On inter alia allegations, the suit was filed.

3. The defendants 1-6 appeared and filed written statement denying the plaint allegations and denied the relationship with Bharosa and contended that the plaintiffs are not successors of Bharosa but the defendants are in possession of the suit land for more than 65 years having ownership, which previously was in the name of Bharosa Nai and then it was recorded in the name of his sons Surajdeen @ Lupurra and Mangaldeen and thereafter the defendants are in possession of the land. The suit has been filed on false allegations. It is also contended that against the order of mutation, the plaintiffs never preferred any appeal. On inter alia contentions, the suit was prayed to be dismissed.

4 . Despite service of notice, defendant-7-State did not appear and was proceeded ex-party.

5. On the basis of pleadings, learned trial Court framed three issues and recorded evidence of the parties and after consideration of the same dismissed the suit vide judgement and decree dated 06.05.2011 and held that the appellants/plaintiffs are not successors of Bharosa Nai but defendants 1-6 are successors of Bharosa Nai, who had two sons Surajdeen and Mangaldeen, now the defendants 1-6 are successors of Surajdeen and Mangaldeen, and dismissed the suit.

6. Plaintiffs 1-2 namely Santosh Kumar and Lallu only preferred the civil appeal but other plaintiffs 3-7 did not prefer any appeal. Vide judgement and decree dated 27.11.2013, learned first appellate Court has confirmed the judgement and decree of trial Court, who also allowed two applications under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC filed by the plaintiffs/appellants and after considering the additional documents, held that these documents do not help to the case of the plaintiffs/appellants.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs 1-2 submits that after allowing the applications under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC, learned first appellate Court ought to have considered the documents filed on behalf of the plaintiffs and matter ought to have been remanded for trial afresh. Despite there being dispute about the paternity, the learned courts below have not decided the same. She submits that although the defen