SUNDER AHIR Vs. PHULJHARIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is by the plaintiffs against the judgment of reversal of the First Additional Subordinate Judge, Sasaram, dismissing the plaintiffs' suit, on the ground of want of title and limitation.

(2.) Mr. Lakhshman Saran Sinha, who appeared for the appellants, put forward three objections to the decree appealed from (I) that the Court of appeal below, before remand, having accepted the plaintiffs' genealogy, it was not open to the same court, after remand, to go behind its previous finding, and hold that the plaintiffs' genealogy has not been proved (2) that the Court of appeal below acted illegally in making out a third case, which was not the case of any party, that there were two persons of the name of Parbhu, and, therefore, Parbhu, of village Aorahin and Parbhu of village Baluahi were two different persons in that, this has vitiated its finding on the question of title of the plaintiffs and (3) that the finding of limitation is also vitiated, because if the plaintiffs genealogy is accepted as correct as was done by the first appellate court before remand, then the plaintiffs were co-sharers with the defendants, and therefore, there was no question of plaintiffs' want of possession.

(3.) In order to appreciate the points raised, on this appeal by the appellants, it is necessary to state a few facts, which have bearing on the questions at issue.