Gurusharan Sharma, J.@mdashTitle Suit No. 52 of 1979 was filed for declaration pf title and recovery of possession over 2.35 acres land, bearing Plot No. 2990, appertaining to Khata No. 206, under Khewat No. 3/1, situate in village Hesadih, within Sonahatu Police Station of Ranchi District, detailed in Schedule ''B'' to the plaint as also for mesne profits from 1973.
2. According to the plaintiffs Revisional survey Plot No. 2990 was carved out from Cadestral Survey Plot No. 2323, which was raiyati land of their agnates the defendants 4 to 9, but in Revisional survey it was wrongly recorded as gair majana malik-parti pathar, The defendants 1 to 3 were sons to Kashi Nath Singh Munda, the then landlord.
3. The defendant No. 1 did not contest the suit. The defendants 2 to 3 denied plaintiffs agnatic relationship with the defendants 4 to 9. According to them nature of the disputed land was not parti pathar and the plaintiffs ancestor Gokul Mahto was never in possession of any portion of Cadestral survey Plot No. 2323. It was mundari-khunt-katti tenancy land and entry thereof made in the Revisional survey record-of-rights was conclusive and the same could not have been challenged in suit.
4. The suit was decreed on contest with costs as against the contesting defendants 2 and 3 and without costs against the defendants 1 and 4 to 11 and the plaintiffs right, title and interest was declared. It was held that the plaintiffs were raiyats of suit land and were dispossessed therefrom on or after 12.11.1973 and as such were entitled to recover possession from the defendants 1 to 3.
5. The defendants 2 and 3 preferred Title Appeal No. 57 of 1983 which was also dismissed by the impugned judgment and decree dated 17.9.1987 and the findings of the Trial Court were affirmed.
6. Both the Courts below recorded concurrent findings of fact that plaintiffs were in possession of the suit land and were dispossessed only before initiation of the proceeding u/s 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it was also found that Revisional survey Plot No. 2990 was part of Cadestral survey Plot No. 2323, which was raiyati land of plaintiffs'' ancestors and was wrongly recorded as gair majarua malik land in Revisional survey khatian. Revisional survey Plot No. 2991 was carved out of Cadestral survey Plot No. 2324, which was hillock, having an area of 11 decimals, which should have been recorded as gair majarua malik-parti pather.
7. Defendants preferred the present Second Appeal which was admitted on the following substantial question of law;
"In view of the provision of Section 256 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, whether the Courts below could have decreed the suit."
8. Admittedly, Plot No. 2323 appertaining to Khata No. 113, having an area of 5.05 acres stood recorded as raiyati Don II land of the plaintiffs ancestors in the Cadestral survey khatian (Exhibit 11), and Plot No. 2324, appertaining to Khata No. 151, having an area of 11 decimals stood recorded in the cadestral survey khatian (Exhibit 11/A) as gair majarua khas-parti pathar land of the then landlord, Mangal Singh Munda. From Cadestral survey Plot No. 2323, Revisional survey Plot No. 2990, having an area of 2.35 acres was carved out and recorded as gair majarua malik parti pathar land of then landlord Kashi Nath Singh in R.S. khatian (Exhibit 12) and R.S. Plot No. 2991 carved out of C.S. Plot No. 2324, having 10, decimals area was recorded in khatian (Exhibit 12/A) as raiyati land of Gokhul Mahto, father of the plaintiff No. 1. Name of Kashi Nath Singh Munda, father of the defendants 1 to 3 stood recorded as mundari khunt-kattidar of village Hesadih in the khewat (Exhibit A) of the year 1930.
9. Section 256 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 (hereinafter to be referred to as ''the Act'') provides "(1) Where a record-or-rights has been finally published u/s 83 of this Act or under Sub-section (2) of Section 103-A of the Bengal Tenancy Act, 1885 (8 of .1885) or amended u/s 254 of this Act, the entries therein relating to ''mundari khunt-kattidart'' tenancies shall be conclusive evidence of the nature and incidents of such tenancies and of all particulars recorded in such entries and, if any, tenancy in the area, estate and tenure for which the record of rights was prepared has not been recorded therein as a ''mundari khunt-kattidari'' tenancy no evidence shall be received in any Court to show that such tenancy is a ''mundari khunti-kattidari'' tenancy.
10. Placing reliance on Exhibits 6 and 7 and the evidence of PW 7 and other materials on record, both the Courts below recorded concurrent findings of fact that there was a mistake in revisional survey record-of-rights in respect of raiyati Khata No. 33 and gair majarua malik Khata No. 206. In fact, the Revisional survey Plot No. 2990 carved out of Cadastral Survey Plot No. 2323 ought to have been recorded under raiyati Khata No. 33 of Gokhul Mahto, the plaintiffs ancestor having an area of 2.35 acres, showing it an Don Class-II land and Revisional survey Plot No. 2991 carved out of Cadestral survey Plot No. 2324, which was a hillock having an area of 11 decimals, should have been shown in gair. majarua malik Khata No. 206 as parti pathar, having an area of 10 decimals. Instead of Revisional survey Plot No. 2990, Revisional survey Plot No. 2991 was erroneously shown as Don Class II and vice-a-versa Revisional survey Plot No. 2990 as shown as parti pathar. The aforesaid wrong entry made by mistake in the Revisional survey record-of-rights did not confer any right and title to the then landlord Kashi Nath Singh Munda, the ancestor of the defendants 1 to 3; rather the suit land (2.35 acres) was the property of plaintiffs* ancestor and was in their possession throughout until the defendants 1 to 3 dispossessed them prior to initiation of the proceeding u/s 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in November, 1973.
11. In fact, it was not a suit for correction of record-of-rights; rather it was for declaration of the title/raiyati interest of the plaintiffs and for recovery of possession over the suit land. The cause of action arose to file the suit only after the plaintiffs were dispossessed by the defendants 1 to 3 some time in November, 1973.
12. Defendants-appellants con tended that their ancestors were mundari- khunt-kattidars and, therefore, the entry made in the Revisional survey record-of- rights with regard to mundari-khunt-katti lands could not have been challenged in the present suit, the aforesaid entry was conclusive evidence and no suit to correct such entry in view of the provisions of Section 256 of the Act was maintainable. Section 92 of the Act also imposes a bar on the Court''s jurisdiction in the matters relating to record-of-rights. In this regard reference may be made to a Full Bench decision in Paritosh Maity v. Ghasi Ram Maity 1987 PLJR 354, wherein it was held that civil suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession and inter alia challenging the entries in the revenue records was maintainable even after insertion of Clause (ee) in Section 87 of the Act. In this context the relief portion of the plaint was important. In the present case, the plaintiffs sought for declaration of right, title and interest in respect of the suit land and also for a decree for recovery of possession. The main issue in the suit was whether the suit land was in possession of the plaintiffs ancestors during Revisional survey operation, who had valid title over the same, but due to mistake in the preparation of record-of- rights, the defendants first party got opportunity to advance false claim thereon. Hence, in my opinion, pure question of title and possession was involved in the present suit. The suit was, therefore, maintainable and was not hit by "the provisions of either Section 92 or Section 256 of the Act. I therefore, find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgments and decrees passed by two Courts below.
13. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. No costs.
