JUDGMENT : ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the plaintiffs are the descendants of Radhika Prasad and Rewati Kumari who were entitled to claim maintenance from Ghatwal and even if their Title Suit No. 108 of 1965 seeking khas possession of property on account of non- payment of maintenance was ultimately decided against them, they still acquired the status of raiyats by the operation of law i.e. upon coming into force of Bihar Land Reforms Act as the name of Radhika Prasad and Rewati Kumari was recorded in parcha issued in Gangster Survey Settlement. 2. On the other hand, it was the case of the defendants that the property exclusively belongs to them as they were the Ghatwals and upon vesting, they acquired the status of raiyat to the exclusion of Radhika Prasad and Rewati Kumari. The learned counsel has submitted that upon vesting right of Radhika Prasad and Rewati Kumari to get maintenance does not get extinguished and they acquired the status of raiyat by virtue of fiction of law. He submits that he would be relying upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 1981 SC 1397 3. Considering the aforesaid submission, this second appeal is admitted to be heard on the following substantial questions of law: - A. Whether the learned Appellate Court while passing impugned judgment & decree failed to appreciate that intermediary right of Shyama Charan Lal in the suit property, which is a “Kamat Land” vested with the Govt. by virtue of notification issued by the Govt. of Bihar U/s 3A of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 and the suit property would be deemed to be settled in the name of Radhika Prasad & Rewati Kumar, parcha holders (Ext2) and were entitled for maintenance? B. Whether the Learned Appellate Court while passing impugned judgment & decree committed serious error of law and failed to appreciate that Rent Assessment made in favour of Shyama Charan Lal (Ghatwal) vide Case No. 117/1980 (Ext. E) as on the date of vesting, intermediary rights of Shyama Charan Lal in the suit property got abolished and he was not entitled for the rent assessment, in view of 'Parcha' (Ext.2), issued in the name of Radhika Prasad & Rewati Kumari? E) as on the date of vesting, intermediary rights of Shyama Charan Lal in the suit property got abolished and he was not entitled for the rent assessment, in view of 'Parcha' (Ext.2), issued in the name of Radhika Prasad & Rewati Kumari? C. Whether the Learned Appellate Court while passing impugned judgment & decree committed serious error of law in recording a finding that there is no unity in title & possession, as suit property is the exclusive property of Shyama Charan Lal, who was Ghatwal and after death of Rewati Kumari (Khorposhdar, died on 1/5/74 during pendency of F.A 22/1969), the suit property, which was a "Kamat Land" retained its original character, and whether such findings are perverse? Issue notice to the respondents under ordinary process for which requisites be filed by the appellants within ten days from today. 4. Let the records be called for from the concerned courts. 5. Post this case on 08.04.2025. 6. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the concerned court through ‘e-mail/FAX’.