The court upheld that the plaintiffs failed to establish exclusive ownership and the joint ownership was affirmed by subsequent surveys and records.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KHATIM REZA ORAL ORDER

10 29-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment of affirmance dated 04.06.2016 passed in Title Appeal No. 40 of 1999 by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-VI, Bhagalpur, whereby the learned appellate court has upheld the judgment and decree dated 24.09.1999 passed in Title Suit No. 239 of 1996 by learned Sub Judge-IV, Bhagalpur.

3. The plaintiffs are the appellants in the instant Second Appeal.

4. The plaintiffs filed Title Suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession over the suit land and also for declaring that the revisional survey entry is wrong.

5. The case of the plaintiffs, in short, is that the plaintiffs are the heirs of Sk. Jhaksu @ Jhakas Ali, who was son of Sk. Khushal and the defendants are the son of Sk. Bundey Ali who was also son of Sk. Khushal. Sk. Jhaksu and Sk. Bundey Ali were full brothers. It is further pleaded that both the brothers acquired certain landed properties separately but their residential house was within one and same boundary. Both the brothers were residing separately, it was recorded as ‘Makan Bakabze Raiyat Shamilat’ and in the IInd column, it was shown in equal share while the other properties of both the brothers were shown separately in separate possession. Total area of 1.93 acres and 5½ decimals land of the residential house described in Item No. 1 of Schedule-A of the plaint were in exclusive possession of Sk. Jhaksu and remaining land of Plot No. 217 of area 11 decimals and Plot No. 238 of area 15 decimals, Plot No. 508 of area 31 decimals and Plot No. 510 of area 21 decimal. Total 84 & ½ decimal under Khata No. 18 were in exclusive possession of Sk. Bundey Ali. The details of the said land is mentioned in Item No. 2 of Schedule-B at the foot of the plaint, out of which 5 and ½ decimal land was residential house and accordingly it was shown in Cadestral Survey Khatiyan and both brothers remained in exclusive separate possession till their lifetime. It is further pleaded that defendant no. 1 with the help of his muscle men came on the suit land on 27.08.1997 in absence of the plaintiffs and cut the ridge between old plot no. 508 and 509 and made it one part or block. It is further contended that Sk. Chhedi, son of Jhaksu Ali died 30 years ago leaving behind his widow, two sons and three daughters, who are plaintiff nos. 4 to 9. Geneological table has also been given in paragraph no. 6 of the plaint. Further case of the plaintiffs is that the land of Khata No. 18 was recorded in Cadestral Survey Khatiyan in the name of both the brothers and ex-landlord issued rent receipt according to separate share shown in separate possession in the remark column of C.S. Khatiyan. At the time of vesting of Zamindari, the ex-landlord filed return and thereafter rent receipt was issued by the State of Bihar in the name of both the brothers though during the lifetime ex-landlord, rent receipt were issued separately. It is specific case of the plaintiffs that the lands were in separate possession of both the brothers since before the operation of Cadestral Survey and thus he claimed that the Jhaksu was in possession of 1.98 and ½ decimal land while the defendants who are heirs of Sk. Bundey Ali were in possession with respect to 84 and ½ decimal only including the residential house. It is further case of the plaintiffs that the entry in the name of both the branch of the descendants has been mentioned as half and half area (equal share).

6. On the other hand, defendant no. 1 appeared and filed his written statement denying the claim of the plaintiffs. The land in question has been mentioned in Cadestral Survey as equal share of the Raiyat in column II and in remarks column, their names were recorded. It is pleaded that residential house on plot no. 54 under Khata No.18 was recorded in joint names in equal shares. Both the bro