Vishnudeo Narayan, J.

1. This appeal at the Instance of the plaintiff-appellant is directed against the impugned judgment and decree of affirmation dated 16.5.1989 and 30,5.1989 respectively passed in Title Appeal No. 39 of 1981, by Shri Philip Topno, 1st Additional District Judge, Palamau upholding the judgment and decree dated 20.7.1981 and 14.8.1981 passed in Title Partition Suit No. 79 of 1979 by 4th Additional Sub-ordinate Judge, Daltonganj whereby the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed

2. The plaintiff-appellant had filed the said title partition suit for metes and bounds partition of the suit property detailed in the scheduled at the foot of the plaint claiming half share therein and for carving out of a separate takhata of his half share in respect thereof by Survey Knowing Commissioner duly appointed by the Court.

3. The case of the plaintiff-appellant is that the entire suit land appertains to ratyati kaimi khata No. 23, of Village-Karakat, Police Station- Daltonganj now Chainpur in the district of Palamau recorded in the name of Jadubar Kahar in the Cadastral Survey Records of Right and there was a house on Plot No. 317, having an area of 0.03 acres of the plaintiff in which he has been residing said Jadubar Kahar had two sons, namely, Aliyar Kahar and Sukan Kahar. The plaintiff-appellant is the son of Aliyar Kahar aforesaid whereas defendants- respondent are the sons of Sukan Kahar aforesaid. It is alleged that the parties to the suit have their separate residence and cultivation for the sake of convenience but there has been no partition between them by metes and bounds in respect of the suit land and there is unity of ownership and possession of the parties over the suit land in which the plaintiff-appellant has half share. It is also alleged that Jamabandi is still joint though the plaintiff-appellant contributes in payment of the rent. It is alleged that the plaintiff-appellant demanded for partition of the suit land which was refused and hence this suit.

4. The case of the defendants-respondent, inter alia, is that though khata No. 23, stands recorded in the name of Jadubar Kahar in the Cadastral Survey Records of Right but all the plots of khata No. 23 except Plot Nos. 930, 936 and 937 having the total area of 24 decimals are recorded in the name of Sukan Kahar, the natural father of the defendants-respondent in his possession in the remark column of the said Cadastral Survey Records of Right and only Plot Nos. 930, 936 and 937 are in possession of Jadubar Kahar, the recorded raiyat. Their case further is that Jadubar Kahar had acquired land in village Karakat long before the Cadastral Survey and Settlement Operation and there had been a separation and both the sons of Jadubar Kahar had separated from their father and the land allotted to Aliyar Kahar, the father of the plaintiff-appellant, was recorded in khata No. 13 in the Survey Records of right in the name of Aliyar Kahar, the area of which is 11.26 acres. It is alleged that Sukan Kahar also pressed his father Jadubar Kahar for giving him land and when it was evaded by his father he forcibly took possession in the year 1908 of all the lands of khata No. 23, except the aforesaid three plots, and his possession was exclusively recorded in the Survey Records of Right and Jadubar Kahar only remained in possession of three plots i.e. Plot No. 930, 936 and 937, It is alleged that the rent payable of the land of khata No. 23 was Rs. 20/3/3 pie and it was difficult for Jadubar Kahar to pay the said rent to the landlord for possessing only 24 decimals of land of three plots aforesaid and as such only one year after the Survey and Settlement, Operation but prior to his death he surrendered the land of khata No. 23, to the landlord who after the said surrender made oral settlement of the entire land of Khata No. 23, with Sukan Kahar aforesaid and since then he had been in possession of all the plots of khata No. 23 as a raiyat and he began to pay rent to the l