K. P. Singh, J. - (1.) THIS is a plaintiff's writ petition arising out of a suit for declaration of their Sirdari right in the disputed land on the basis of their adverse and continuous possession for more than statutory period.
(2.) THE defence in the case was that the defendant has been in possession over the disputed land and that the plaintiffs were not in possession and the plaintiffs' suit was barred by time and that the defendant was Bhumidhar in possession over the disputed land. The trial court and the first appellate court gave judgments for the plaintiffs petitioners and held as sirdars in possession whereas the second appellate court has negatived the claim of the plaintiffs and has indicated that the plaintiffs can never acquire sirdari right in the disputed land. Aggrieved by the judgment of the second appellate court, the plaintiffs petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned Counsel for the plaintiffs petitioners has contended before me that the defendant contesting opposite party had not executed the decree in his favour against the plaintiffs' father within the prescribed time, hence the plaintiffs and their father acquired hereditary and sirdari right in the disputed land.
(3.) SECOND contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that the second appellate court has acted illegally in taking into consideration the additional evidence adduced before it. Third contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that the defendant opposite party never took a plea that the disputed land was in the bed of river, hence the second appellate court has patently erred in regativing the claim of the plaintiffs petitioners in the disputed land on the ground that the disputed land has been under water due to flood in the Ganges.;