JUDGMENT : ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants. 2. This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dated 13.02.2020 (decree signed on 20.02.2020) passed by the learned District Judge-II, Lohardaga whereby the Civil Appeal No. 04/2015 has been dismissed. The suit was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) II, Lohardaga being Title Suit No. 38/2009. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the learned courts have not considered the admitted document on record i.e. Exhibit-4 which is Circle Inspector’s Report which supported the claim of the original plaintiff Dayal Pahan @ Puran Pahan to be the sole son of Madhwa Pahan who in turn was the sole son of Dukhuwa Pahan, who was admittedly the recorded tenant. The learned counsel has submitted that in the Circle Inspector’s report (Exhibit-4), it was observed that the property is recorded in the name of Madhwa Pahan, S/o Dukhuwa Pahan by referring to Register-II. The learned counsel submits that the cause of action arose when there was an error in the entry made in the recent survey regarding record of rights. 4. The learned counsel has further submitted that the defendants claimed that Dukhuwa Pahan had a son, namely, Rungtu Pahan who had four sons, namely, Madhuwa Pahan, Budhuwa Pahan, Sukra Pahan and Somra Pahan and Dayal Pahan-the plaintiff was son of Madhuwa Pahan. The learned counsel submits that a new name, namely, Rungtu Pahan was introduced in the genealogy who was said to be the son of Dukhuwa Pahan as per the written statement. However, during the course of arguments, it is not in dispute that Register-II which was referred to in the Circle Inspector’s Report (Exhibit-4) was never exhibited before the learned court. The learned counsel has further submitted that the learned trial court did not appreciate Exhibit-4 properly and the fact that Register-II was not exhibited before the learned court was not fatal to the case of the plaintiff. He has also submitted that the plaintiff was claiming right, title and interest with respect to the property and the defendants were also claiming right, title and interest and both of them were claiming to be the descendants of Dukhuwa Pahan and the only difference was that the genealogy was not matching as stated above. 5. He has also submitted that the plaintiff was claiming right, title and interest with respect to the property and the defendants were also claiming right, title and interest and both of them were claiming to be the descendants of Dukhuwa Pahan and the only difference was that the genealogy was not matching as stated above. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the trial court has recorded that the plaintiff cannot deviate from the fact that he was gotia of the defendants, but the appellate court has recorded that the survey record of right was prepared in the name of ancestors of the defendants only. The learned counsel has submitted that if the finding of the appellate court is taken into consideration, then the right of the plaintiff to the extent of even one-fourth share is taken away. 6. The learned counsel submits that the learned appellate court also did not appreciate the aforesaid aspect of the matter properly and accordingly the present appeal is fit to be admitted. 7. The learned trial court recorded a finding that the plaintiff has not been able to establish his sole right, title, interest and possession over the disputed land. While deciding issue No. VII whether the plaintiff is entitled to get relief as claimed, the learned court has decided that the plaintiff has not been able to establish to be the sole legal heir of the recorded tenant of the suit land. 8. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this second appeal is admitted to be heard on the following substantial question of law: - whether the appellate court was justified in recording that the property was recorded only in the name of ancestors of the defendants when the finding of the trial court was that the plaintiff could not prove the case that he was the sole legal heir of the recorded tenant, meaning thereby, that the property devolved jointly in the name of the plaintiff as well as the defendants. 9. Let notice be issued to the respondents through ordinary process for which requisites be filed within two weeks’ from today. 10. Let the records be called for from the concerned court. 11. Post this case on 19.03.2025 awaiting service report. 12. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the concerned court through ‘e-mail/FAX’.