Judgment Gurusharan Sharma, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 26th April, 1980, passed by the Subordinate Judge, Daltonganj, in Title Suit No. 69 of 1969, whereby the suit was decreed holding the plaintiffs title over the suit lands in village Karui, P.S.Majhiaon, District Palamau, detailed in Schedules I and II to the plaint and the defendants were directed to give vacant possession thereof. The plaintiffs were also held entitled to withdraw a sum of Rs. 2,950A lying in deposit in the Magistrates Court at Garhwa in connection with Miscellaneous Case Nos. 71 and 157 of 1962 under Sec. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The plaintiff Nos. 3 and 4 were full brothers and the plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 were their respective wives. According to the plaintiff Nos. 3 and 4, Kuar Duniya Dayal Singh, their agnatic relation was recorded as co-sharer-proprietor of the Milikiyat under Khewat No. 9 to the extent of 4 Annas 6 pies share therein, whereas they were co-sharers proprietors to the extent of 4 pies 10 kauries share in the Milkiyat under Khewat No. 3/1. 3. Kuar Duniya Dayal Sigh died leaving behind seven sons, namely, Mahadeo Singh, ancestor of the defendants 16 to 18, Shaligram Singh, father of the defendants 9 and 10, Ram Naresh Singh, father of the defendants 13 to 15, Ram badan Singh the defendant No. 1, Ram Sunder Singh, the defendant No. 2, Ram Dayal Singh, the defendant No. 11 and Sheo Dayal Singh, the defendant No. 12. The defendant Nos. 3 to 8 were junior members of the family of the defendants 1 and 2. 4. Under Khewat No. 9, Khata No. 106 stood recorded as Gairmazarua Malik and included plot No. 109. After death of Kuar Duniya Dayal Singh, there was a partition among among his sons including the properties under Khewat No. 9. However, his two sons, namely, the defendants 1 and 2 remained joint. Mahadeo Singh did not get any share in plot No. 109. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were allotted 13.50 acres on the north western portion in plot No. 109 and they orally settled the same alongwith other lands with the plaintiffs 1 and 2 sometime in the year 1945, while their respective husbands, namely, the plaintiffs 3 and 4 were lodged in Jail in connection with some criminal case. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were allotted 13.50 acres on the north western portion in plot No. 109 and they orally settled the same alongwith other lands with the plaintiffs 1 and 2 sometime in the year 1945, while their respective husbands, namely, the plaintiffs 3 and 4 were lodged in Jail in connection with some criminal case. Pursuant to the settlement rent receipts written by the defendant No. 16 and duly signed by the defendants 1 and 2 were granted to them. The defendant Nos. 11 and 14 also settled some lands with the plaintiffs 1 & 2. 5. The plaintiff No. 3 was released from the jail custody first and thereafter he claimed to have resumed Khas possession of 1.50 acres Gairmazarua Malik land in plot No. 177 in his own right as co-sharer-landlord of khewat No. 10. The said portion of plot No. 177 was adjacent to the portion of plot No. 109, already settled with the plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2. The plaintiffs 3 and 4 also took settlement of some lands from the defendant No. 12 and purchased some lands from the defendant No. 15 including 0.50 acre land in plot No. 109. All those lands acquired by the plaintiffs 1 to 4 were amalgamated and formed one block on the spot. 6. They further claimed that at the time of vesting of Zamindari in the State of Bihar under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 the plaintiffs names were shown by the ex-landlords as raiyats over the lands in question. However, a proceeding under Sec. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of the suit lands was decided against the plaintiffs and so they filed the present suit. 7. Three sets of written statements were filed in the suit one on behalf of the defendant No. 4, another on behalf of the defendants 6 to 8 and third on behalf of the defendants 9 and 10. 8. According to the defendant No. 4, the total 35.25 acres of land of plot No. 109 was partitioned near about in the year 1933, wherein Mahadeo Singh and Shaligram Singh jointly got 8.28 acres. 8. According to the defendant No. 4, the total 35.25 acres of land of plot No. 109 was partitioned near about in the year 1933, wherein Mahadeo Singh and Shaligram Singh jointly got 8.28 acres. By that time Ram Naresh Singh was dead and so the rest 26.97 acres were left joint among the four brothers, namely, Ram Badan Singh,Ram Sunder Singh, Ram Dayal Singh and Sheo Dayal Singh, and three sons of late Ram Naresh Singh. Five years thereafter there was a partition among them, whereby 9.63 acres was allotted to Ram Sunder Singh, 7.12 acres was allotted to Ram Badan Singh, 4.22 acres to Ram Dayal Singh, 5 acres to Sheo Dayal Singh and 1 acre to Bishnudeo Singh and his two brothers, sons of late Ram Naresh Singh. On subsequent partition between Ram Badan Singh and his sons, 5.50 acres land in plot No. 109 was allotted to his son the defendant No. 4. The defendant No. 4 further claimed acquisition of 8 acres in plot No. 109 by way of exchange from Ram Sunder Singh and his son, Brij Nandan Singh. In this manner, he claimed title over 13.50 acres land in plot No. 109. According to him, neither there was any settlement with the plaintiffs nor their names were mentioned in the zamindari as raiyats there of. 9. The defendants 6 to 8 in their written statement pleaded that they started reclaiming Schedule II lands and converted the same into first class paddy land. It was recognised by the defendants 1 and 2 and on payment of Rs. 500.00 as Salami it was settled with them. By way of confirmation of raiyati settlement, a parwana dated 20 Magh 1357 Fasli was granted in respect of the said land alongwith 3.25 acres of plot No. 109. In the Zamindari return their names were mentioned as raiyats. 10. The defendants 9 and 10 in their joint written statement stated inter-alia that on partition of plot No. 109, 8.28 acres thereof was allotted jointly to Mahadeo Singh and Shaligram Singh. Subsequently, on partition between them, the said land was given exclusively to their father, Shaligram singh and Mahadeo Singh was given land elsewhere. Further, these defendants purchased 5 acres in Plot No. 109 from Sheo Dayal Singh to whom the said area was allotted. Subsequently, on partition between them, the said land was given exclusively to their father, Shaligram singh and Mahadeo Singh was given land elsewhere. Further, these defendants purchased 5 acres in Plot No. 109 from Sheo Dayal Singh to whom the said area was allotted. In this way, defendants 9 and 10 claimed their title and possession over 13.28 acres land in Schedule I. According to them, there was no existence of any separate block like Block B in Schedule lands. In paragraph 31 of their written statement defendants 9 and 10 clarified the matter as under: 31. That Block B of Schedule I measuring an area 0.64 acres belongs to and is owned and possessed by these defendants No. 9 and 10 and the lands of Schedule 2 of the plaint belongs to and is owned and possessed by defendants 6 to 8 and there is no block as described Block A in Schedule I of the plaint but 13.50 acres of plot 109 stated above is owned and possessed by the defendant No. 4 only, and the plaintiffs have no concern therewith. 11. By impugned judgment and decree the trial Court found that the plaintiffs have got indefeasible title to the suit lands and they were entitled to get possession of the same. 12. The defendants 1 and 2 had not filed any written statement and both of them died during the pendency of the suit respectively in the years 1972 and 1976. They also not came to depose in the suit. 13. The plaintiffs claimed their title and recovery of possession over total 16 acres land of plot No. 109, detailed in Schedule I, by virtue of the raiyati settlement, out of that 15.36 acres were shown in Block A and the rest 0.64 acres in Block B of the said Schedule and 1.50 acres in plot No. 177 described, in detail, in Schedule II. 0.50 acres in plot No. 109 was claimed by purchase from defendant No. 15 and the rest by way of raiyati settlement, whereas 1.50 acres in plot No. 177 was claimed by way of khas possession and reclamation as a co-sharer-landlord. 14. On behalf of the plaintiffs, Venkateshwar Singh, son of the plaintiffs 1 and 3, was examined as P.W. 10. 14. On behalf of the plaintiffs, Venkateshwar Singh, son of the plaintiffs 1 and 3, was examined as P.W. 10. He proved the rent receipts granted by the defendants 1 and 2 and scribed by the defendant No. 16, which were marked as Exts. 4 to 4/b for the period 1352 to 1360 Fasli, 1352 Fasli corresponds to the year 1945. Besides other lands, those rent receipts related to 13.50 acres land of plot No. 109. 15. The plaintiffs No. 3 and 1 respectively examined themselves as P.Ws. 3 and 16 and supported the case of taking settlement of the suit lands from the defendants 1 and 2 and reclamation. 16. Those receipts (Exts. 4 to 4/b) were denied by the contesting defendant to be genuine. Consequently, they were sent to the handwriting expert for comparison with the admitted signatures of the defendants 1, 2 and 16. The expert, P.W. 14, proved his report which was marked as Ext. 9. He opined that signatures and writings on Exts. 4 to 4/b were of those defendants 1,2 and 16, as asserted by the plaintiff. 17. After close of the plaintiffs evidence, the contesting defendants made a prayer to send the rent leceipts, Exts. 4 to 4/b another handwriting and finger print expert and the trial Court, accordingly, sent them to another expert, The said expert was examined as D.W. 5 and proved his report, which was marked Ext. H. According to him, Exts. 4 to 4/b did not contain writings and signatures of defendants 1, 2 an 16. 18. The opinions of both experts were contradictory. The trial Court considered both the reports on their merits and rightly came to the conclusion that Ext. H was prepared only with a view to contradict Ext. 9 and the defendant No. 16 disguised his writing when he was directed to give his specimen in Court. 19. It is true that opinion of handwriting expert was not conclusive evidence. It was only in the nature of opinion evidence. Such evidence was required to be examined with some amount of caution as normally the experts appear to serve the party at whose instance they were examined. 20. In Ishwari Prasad Misra V/s. Md. 19. It is true that opinion of handwriting expert was not conclusive evidence. It was only in the nature of opinion evidence. Such evidence was required to be examined with some amount of caution as normally the experts appear to serve the party at whose instance they were examined. 20. In Ishwari Prasad Misra V/s. Md. ha -- , while dealing with conflicting and contradictory reports of two experts, the Apex Court held that evidence given by an expert of handwriting could never be conclusive because it was, after all, opinion evidence. The Court considered the evidence of both the experts and came to the conclusion that the report of the expert examined by the respondents did not really held the respondents case and on the basis of the evidence given by other witnesses corroborated by the opinion of the expert examined by the appellant proved execution of the document in question by the respondents. 21. Another circumstance in favour of the plaintiffs was that the defendants 1 and 2, who were signatories to the Exts. 4 to 4/b did not come forward to deny their genuineness in suit or their respective signatures thereon. 22. The khatian of Khata No. 106 and the demand register were marked respectively as Exts. 13(A) and 14. It is not in dispute that 13.50 acres land, out of plot No. 109 was allotted to the defendants 1 and 2 and they were competent to make reiyati settlement of the said Gairmazarua Malik land appertaining to khata No. 106. The demand in Register II was opened for total 22.30 acres land in the names of the plaintiffs 1 and 2, which they claimed to have been taken in settlement from the defendants 1, 2, 11 and 14. 23. The contesting defendants brought on record the statements of the defendants 1 and 2 made in the proceedings under Sec. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein the settlement made in the year 1945 in favour of the plaintiffs were denied. They were marked as Exts. C & C/1. 24. It was not in dispute that the defendants 1 and 2 were the landlords and their proprietary interest vested, in the State of Bihar under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, with effect from 26.1.1955. After vesting field Bujharat was conducted under the instructions of the Revenue Department of the State (Exts. C & C/1. 24. It was not in dispute that the defendants 1 and 2 were the landlords and their proprietary interest vested, in the State of Bihar under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, with effect from 26.1.1955. After vesting field Bujharat was conducted under the instructions of the Revenue Department of the State (Exts. 15 and 15/A) on the spot and the plaintiffs were found in possession of 13.50 acres land in plot No. 109 and 1.10 acre land in plot No. 177. Accordingly on 11.10.1957 a Jamabandi in respect of 13.50 acres land in plot No. 109 was created in the names of the plaintiffs 1 and 2. On the other hand the defendants neither challenged the same nor got any Jamabandi opened in Register II in their names. 25. In my view denial of settlement in favour of the plaintiffs by the defendants 1 and 2 in Exts. C & C/1 was not acceptable after the plaintiffs succeeded in proving genuineness of the rent receipts Exts. 4 to 4/b granted by them in favour of the plaintiffs. 26. The contesting defendants, however, produced Zamindari return filed by (1) Ram Badan Singh, wherein over 1.50 acres land plot No. 177 and 3.25 acres of plot No. 109, Rajendra Prasad Singh, the defendant No. 6 was shown as raiyat and (2) Ram Sunder Singh and his son Brijnarain Singh separately, wherein 4.101/2 acres of plot No. 109 was shown in khas possession of each of them separately. They were marked as Exts. E to E/2. Nothing has been produced thereafter to show as to whether after vesting of the Zamindari any Jamabandi in Register II was opened in the name of the said Rajendra Prasad Singh and fair rent was fixed under Sec. 6 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 in the names of Ram Badan Singh and Brijnarain Singh. 27. A Full Bench of this Court in Mostt. Ugni and Anr. V/s. Chowa Mahto and Ors. AIR 1968 Patna 302 held that in case the settlement was claimed through a registered deed of agricultural lease, delivery of possession was not necessary to be proved for the purpose of declaration of title of the leasee, but if the said lease was not registered, it was inadmissible as evidence of title. V/s. Chowa Mahto and Ors. AIR 1968 Patna 302 held that in case the settlement was claimed through a registered deed of agricultural lease, delivery of possession was not necessary to be proved for the purpose of declaration of title of the leasee, but if the said lease was not registered, it was inadmissible as evidence of title. However it was open to the tenant/leasee concerned to proved that he obtained raiyati interest on the strength of actual possession and acceptance of rent by the landlord and in that situation even a Sada deed of lease /settlement was admissible for collateral purpose for proving the nature of possession. 28. In the present case, the contesting defendants 6 to 8 claimed settlement from the defendants 1 and 2 by a Sada Parwana which was not admissible as evidence of their title in respect of 3.25 acres land of plot No. 109 and 1.50 acres of Plot No. 177. 29. The trial Court, on the evidence on record, rightly held that the rent receipts, Exts. 4 to 4/b were genuine and were granted by the defendant 1 and 2. The plaintiffs claim was corroborated by the evidence of expert examined on their behalf. 30. The plaintiffs, in my opinion, proved their raiyati interest in the suit lands on the basis of oral settlement coupled with acceptance of rent by the landlord and their actual possession thereon. 31. In the aforesaid circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree in this appeal. 32. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed, but without costs.