JUDGMENT Gurusharan Sharma, J. 1. Eta Oraon had two sons, Mahesh Oraon and Chera Oraon 14.47 acres land of Khata No. 331, situated in mouza Baralota, district-Palarnau, stood recorded in Cadestral Survey Khatiyan, Ext. 6 as raiyati land of Chera Oraon, who died without leaving any male issue. He had a daughter, Punia, who was married with Reyan Oraon, father of defendants 1 and 3. 2. Plaintiffs were descendants of Mahesh Oraon, who was tenure-holder under Khewat No. 47 of mouza Baralota. According to plaintiffs, after death of Chera, his full brother, Mahesh Oraon inherited raiyati lands of Khata No. 333 left by him. They denied Punia to be daughter or Chera and her husband, Reyan Oraon to be his ghar-damad plaintiffs claimed that out of aforesaid 14.47 acres, their ancestor, Lallu Oraon had made raiyati settlement of 10.47 acres with defendant No. 1 and remaining 4 acres, which was subject matter of dispute in the present suit continued in their khas possession and after vesting of their milkiat interest in the State of Bihar under the provisions of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, they got fair rent fixed therefor along with other lands under Sections 5, 6 and 7 of the said Act. 3. On the other hand, defendants case was that Chera left behind his daughter Punia. Her husband Reyan Oraon was living with Chera as ghar-damad and as such the entire 14.47 acres land of Khata No. 331 were inherited by him and alleged raiyati settlement of 10.47 acres in favour of defendant No. 1 was a myth. In fact, plaintiffs managed to include the suit lands, detailed in schedule to the plaint, in their Jamabandi without notice to the defendants and, therefore, step was taken before the revenue authorities for rectification thereof, after death of Reyan Oraon, his two sons, defendants 1 and 3 inherited the suit land and were enjoying possession thereon. 4. Trial Court dismissed the suit holding that Punia was daughter of Chera and her husband Reyan Oraon was living with Chera as ghar-damad and after his death inherited the suit lands including the remaining 10.47 acres land of Khata No. 331. 5. Plaintiffs thereafter filed Title Appeal No. 50 of 1984, which has been allowed by impugned judgment and decree dated 19.3.1987. 5. Plaintiffs thereafter filed Title Appeal No. 50 of 1984, which has been allowed by impugned judgment and decree dated 19.3.1987. Trial Courts decree has been set aside and suit has been decreed, holding that there was no reliable evidence on record to prove (hat Punia was daughter of Chera Oraon and as such defendants claim over the suit land was not accepted. 6. It was further held that plaintiffs, on the other hand, established their interest over the suit land and the Additional Collector concerned was not legally correct to cancel demand created in the name of plaintiffs in Register 11. 7. I find that trial Court while considering question of relationship of Punia with Chera Oraon dealt with Ext. B, the objection petition, said to be filed by Tapeshwar Oraon, plaintiff No. 2, before the Additional Collector, Daltonganj in Misc. Case No. 83 of 1977-78, wherein he had admitted Punia to be daughter of Chera Oraon. The Court of appeal below has discarded the said document on the ground that while Tapeshwar Oraon being examined as PW 10 was not confronted with his admission in Ext. B by the contesting defendants and the said document was brought on record at the close of defendants evidence and was proved by DW 7. On behalf of plaintiffs, no suggestion was given to PW 7 either in respect of genuineness of Ext. B or signature of Tapeshwar Oraon thereon. The said witness was clerk of Mr. Radheyshyam Prasad, Advocate and in his cross- examination stated that Tapeshwar had put his signature on Ext. B in his presence. 8. In such circumstances, it was incumbent upon the appellate Court to consider Ext. B and evidence of DW 7 in respect of relationship of Chera Oraon and Punia, mother of defendants 1 to 3 and then to decide the appeal on its own merit and in accordance with law. 9. I, therefore, set aside impugned judgment and decree passed by the Court of appeal below and remitted the case to the first appellate Court to hear Title Appeal No. 50 of 1984 afresh in the light of the observations made above and dispose it of on its own merit and in accordance with law. 10. 9. I, therefore, set aside impugned judgment and decree passed by the Court of appeal below and remitted the case to the first appellate Court to hear Title Appeal No. 50 of 1984 afresh in the light of the observations made above and dispose it of on its own merit and in accordance with law. 10. If it is found that Punia was daughter of Chera Oraon and her husband was living as ghar-damad, then plaintiffs claim of inheritance of the estate left by Chera Oraon by his full brother Mahesh Oraon and thereafter alleged raiyati settlement of 10.47 acres and fixation of rent over remaining 4 acres after vesting cannot be accepted. Lower Court records may be sent down.