Judgmrnt M. Y. Eqbal, J.-This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 17.12.1998 passed by learned Single Judge in First Appeal No. 31 of 1988(R), whereby the aforesaid appeal has been allowed and the judgment and decree passed by Sub-Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in Partition Suit No. 53 of 1984 has been set aside. Consequently, the suit was decreed. 2. Plaintiffs/respondents filed aforementioned suit for partition of one-third share in the suit land comprised within Cadastral Survey Khata no. 35 of village Pachmo and C.S. Khata no. 12 of village Pandaria. Plaintiffs' case, inter alia, is that Lodi Ahir was common ancestor of the parties. Lodi Ahir had five sons namely, Bandhu, Mewa, Gopi, Dallu and Fulchand. Plaintiffs are the descendants of Fulchand, whereas defendants are descendants of Bandhu and Mewa. According to the plaintiffs, Lodi Ahir lived in village Pachmo and he owned and possessed lands in village Pachmo, Pandaria and other villages in the district of Palamau at Daltonganj. Before the last Cadastral Survey, Gopi and Dallu separated from Lodh and were allotted lands in other village and whereafter they settled there. Dallu died issueless. Bandhu and Mewa remained joint with their father Lodi and assisted him in cultivation of the suit land. Plaintiffs' further case is that Lodi died in 1913-14 before the commencement of Cadastral Survey operation leaving behind his two major sons, namely, Bandhu and Mewa and one minor son Fulchand. After his death Bandhu became the karta of the family. In the C.S. operation, Bandhu and Mewa were recorded raiyats in respect of the suit land. Bandhu, Mewa and Fulchand died one after another while living jointly. After their death, their sons jointly owned and possessed the ancestral land including the suit land. It is alleged by the plaintiffs that they are living in the ancestral house in village Pachmo. Defendant nos. 1 to 5 in the Revisional Survey Operation became hostile to the plaintiffs and even denied their right and ownership over the suit lands. In spite of the demands made by the plaintiffs, the defendants did not amicably partition the suit lands. Hence, the necessity of the suit for partition of the one-third share of the plaintiffs in the suit properties. 3. Defendants/appellants contested the suit by filing joint written statement contending, inter alia, that their ancestor Lodi had no landed property. In spite of the demands made by the plaintiffs, the defendants did not amicably partition the suit lands. Hence, the necessity of the suit for partition of the one-third share of the plaintiffs in the suit properties. 3. Defendants/appellants contested the suit by filing joint written statement contending, inter alia, that their ancestor Lodi had no landed property. There was partition of movable properties between Lodi and his five sons. After partition Mewa and Bandhu remained joint and carried on cattle business and from their own fund they acquired the suit properties by taking settlement from Namudag Estate on payment of Nazrana in the year 1911-12. Their names were mutated in the Revenue Records and were recorded in the last Cadastral Survey in the year 1917-19 and since then they are in exclusive possession of the suit properties. Defendants' further case was that Lodi and Fulchand lived together in Bhandar of Namudag at village Pandaria. Lodi dies in the year 1934. Defendants' further case was that Fulchand was allowed by Bandhu and Mewa on compassionate ground to construct a house over 3 decimals of land in plot no. 314 at village Pachmo on the undertaking that he would vacate it on constructing a house on the land to be purchased by him. But neither he nor his son Padarath vacated the land, instead Padarath fraudulently obtained a Parcha for it under the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act. Defendants' further case was that plaintiff nos. 2 and (sic) filed petition for mutation of their names in respect of the disputed lands before the Circle Officer, Hariharganj in Mutation Case No. 73 of 1980-81, which was rejected on 4.7.1980 after due enquiry and it has become final since the plaintiffs did not prefer any appeal or revision before any authority against it. 4. The Trial court framed the following issues for consideration: 1) Is the suit maintainable as framed? 2) Have the plaintiffs any cause of action for the suit? 3) Had Lodi Ahir landed any immovable properties during his life time? 4) Is there any unity of title and possession between the parties over the suit land? 5) Is the court fee paid by the plaintiffs sufficient? 6) Are the plaintiffs entitled to seek 1/3rd share in the suit properties? 7) To what relief or reliefs are the plaintiffs entitled? 5. 4) Is there any unity of title and possession between the parties over the suit land? 5) Is the court fee paid by the plaintiffs sufficient? 6) Are the plaintiffs entitled to seek 1/3rd share in the suit properties? 7) To what relief or reliefs are the plaintiffs entitled? 5. On consideration of the evidence, oral and documentary, led by the parties, the trial court held that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that Lodi had any landed property, much-less the suit lands; that the suit properties were the self acquired properties of Bandhu and Mewa; that there was no unity of title and possession between the parties and the plaintiffs have no share in the suit properties and accordingly the trial court decided the issue nos. (1) to (4), (6) and (7) against the plaintiffs. The trial court further held that the plaintiffs had sought reliefs for declaration of title as well as recovery of possession, apart from partition and the fixed court fee paid by the plaintiffs was not sufficient and this issue was also decided against the plaintiffs. Ultimately, the suit was dismissed by the trial court. 6. Learned Single Judge after considering the pleadings of the parties and the findings recorded by the trial court formulated following points for consideration:- i) Whether the suit lands are joint family properties or self acquired properties of Bandhu and Mewa? ii) Whether there is unity of title and possession between the parties with respect to the suit lands? iii) Whether the court-fee paid by the plaintiffs is sufficient? iv) Whether the plaintiffs-appellants are entitled to a decree for partition? 7. Learned Single Judge after re-appreciation of the entire evidence has come to a finding that Lodi Ahir died some time before commencement of Cadastral Survey Operation and that Lodi Ahir at the relevant time held and possessed the suit land and was residing at village Pachmo. Learned Single Judge further held that record of right was prepared in the joint name of family members and therefore, it cannot be accepted that suit lands were self acquired property of Bandhu and Mewa. Learned Single Judge further held that the finding recorded by the trial court was perverse in law and accordingly, the judgment of the trial court was set aside. 8. Learned Single Judge further held that the finding recorded by the trial court was perverse in law and accordingly, the judgment of the trial court was set aside. 8. Mr.V. Shivnath, learned senior counsel for the appellant assailed the impugned judgment passed by learned Single Judge as being contrary to law, facts and evidence on record. Learned counsel firstly submitted that learned Single Judge has not discussed the issues framed by the trial court rather framed and considered different issues which is not in accordance with law. Learned counsel submitted that finding of unity of title and possession arrived at by the trial court has not been considered by the learned Single Judge. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned Single Judge has committed serious error of law in recording such finding which is beyond pleadings. 9. On the other hand, Mr. V.K. Prasad learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the relationship between the parties have not been disputed by the defendants and therefore, admittedly plaintiffs are the sons of Fulchand who was one of the son of Lodi Ahir. It was also not disputed by the defendants that Fulchand was minor at the time of Cadastral Survey Operation. Learned counsel submitted that although plaintiffs pleaded that suit lands are self acquired properties of Mewa and Bandhu but no documentary evidence with regard to settlement has been produced. Learned counsel submitted that even defendants have not pleaded ouster and no evidence was led. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that even defendant nos. 1 and 2 who are descendants of Bandhu have not supported the case of the defendants by adducing evidence. According to learned counsel, finding of facts recorded by the learned Single Judge needs no interference by this Court. 10. We have meticulously examined the facts of the case and re-appreciated the entire evidence. Admittedly, defendants took a defense that Bandhu and Mewa took settlement of the suit property on payment of Nazarana from Namudag Estate from their own fund but no documentary evidence was filed in support of the said fact. Defendant no. 3 who was examined as D.W. 15 stated in his evidence about the partition between Lodi and his five sons. He has admitted that before partition Lodi maintained joint family. Defendant no. 3 who was examined as D.W. 15 stated in his evidence about the partition between Lodi and his five sons. He has admitted that before partition Lodi maintained joint family. So far entry of names of Bandhu and Mewa in the Cadastral Survey record of right is concerned, admittedly when Cadastral Survey Operation was going on, Fulchand, fifth son of Lodi, was minor and Lodi .died before commencement of Cadastral Survey Operation. Accordingly, Bandhu and Mewa being the eldest son of Lodi got their names entered in the Cadastral Survey record of right. Learned Single Judge therefore, rightly held that in the facts and circumstances of the case, entry in the Cadastral Survey record of right shall not be the conclusive evidence of title of the predecessor in interest of the defendants. We have noticed that D.W.5 volunteered to make statement that there had never been partition and plaintiffs were joint in the suit property. 11. Curiously enough, some of the defendants who were competent witness have not examined themselves as witness in support of the case of the defendants. Learned Single Judge while reversing the judgment has considered each and every fact and evidence brought on record and has independently applied his judicial mind while recording its finding. We do not find any error of law or perversity in the impugned judgment, which warrants this court to interfere with the said finding. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, there is no merit in this appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed. D.G.R. Patnaik, J.-1 agree.