JUDGMENT Gurusharan Sharma, J. 1. Defendants are appellants. 2. In cadestral survey Khatian names of defendants ancestors were recorded as tenant in respect of Plot Nos. 323 and 343 of village Cailtartola Glidih. District Ranchi. In remarks column thereof names of Ghasi Mahto and Mochi Mahto were mentioned as Sikmidar. Mochi. Mahto was grand father of the plaintiff. 3. Before Revisional Survey there were litigation between recorded tenant and Sik-midar. wherein one of them Ghasi Mahto was party and at its appellate stage, in Title Appeal No. 62 of 1928 there was a compromise, wherein Ghasi Mahto gave up his claim and appeal was disposed of on 30 4.1929. Thereafter. 4. In 1929-30. Revisional Survey Khatian was finally published, wherein Revisional Survey Plot Nos. 610 and 658 respectively were carved out from aforesaid Cadestral Survey Plot Nos. 323 and 343 and in remarks column thereof name of Ranglal Mahto. son of Mochi Mahto (father of plaintiff. Virgu Mahto) was recorded as Dakhalkar. paying rash rent to the recorded tenant. 5. After death of Ranglal Mahto a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was initiated between plaintiff and defendants, wherein defendants possession was declared over the suit land. Plaintiff, thereafter, filed the present suit for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and. in the alternative, for recovery of possession against them. 6. According to plaintiff, his father. Ranglal Mahto died about 25 years ago and thereafter he enjoyed possession over the suit land, openly and adversely to the interest of defendants without any interruption and perfected his title by adverse possession. 7. Defendants while contesting the suit did not deny death of Ranglal Mahto about 25 years ago. According to them, consequent upon compromise aforesaid in 1929 they came in possession over the suit land and either Ranglal Mahto or his son. the plaintiff, was never in possession thereof. Their possession was also found in the proceeding under Section 145 of the Code. 8. It is true that on the basis of Revisional Survey Khatian (Exhibit C/1). entry, if father of plaintiff, is treated as Sikmidar, unless custom of inheritence of such right was proved Sikami right came to an end on the death of Ranglal Mahto, but thereafter plaintiff continued in physical cultivating possession over the suit land and the defendants did not take any step in this regard for twenty five years. entry, if father of plaintiff, is treated as Sikmidar, unless custom of inheritence of such right was proved Sikami right came to an end on the death of Ranglal Mahto, but thereafter plaintiff continued in physical cultivating possession over the suit land and the defendants did not take any step in this regard for twenty five years. Hence they lost their tenan- cy right and plaintiff perfected his title by adverse possession. 9. Both the Courts below on the basis of evidence adduced on behalf of the parties recorded concurrent findings of fact that plaintiffs ancestor and thereafter plaintiff continued in peaceful possession of the suit land for more than twelve years and as such they perfected their title by adverse possession. 10. In such circumstance. I find no reason to interfere with the impugned Judgments and decrees. 11. In the result, this Second Appeal is dismissed, but without costs. Let the lower Court records be sent down immediately. 12. Appeal dismissed.