predecessor-in-interest of defendant –respondents and defendant Devi Sahay had entered their names in the revenue record in respect of suit land on the basis of mutation No. 108 dated November 13, 1960 whereas the said persons did not have any concern with the suit land. He clamed that he had never transferred the land in the name of said persons and never made any statement before the revenue officer. The defendant- respondents have taken up a plea that the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants were owners in possession of the land in dispute prior to 1950 and that the value of the well which was situated in 5 biswas of the land was less than Rs.100/-. Matadeen, Shree Ram and Devi Sahay had agreed to spend money on the renovation of the well and plaintiff had agreed to give 1/3rd share to Matadeen and Shree Ram and remaining 1/3rd share to Devi Sahay. Plaintiff himself had appeared before the revenue officer in presence of Lambardar and the suit land was transferred in favour of Matadeen, Shree Ram and Devi Sahay. The mutation was sanctioned on the statement of the plaintiffappellant. It was clarified in the written statement that at the time of consolidation the government had allotted 2 kanals 10 marls of land for well in place of 5 biswas of land. The plaintiff had not raised any objection at that time also. On the basis of the evidence produced by the both the parties, the Courts below have arrived at a conclusion that the plea taken by the defendant- respondents regarding the entry of mutation with the consent of plaintiff- appellant was correct. The suit was dismissed inter-alia on the ground that mutation No. 108 Ex.P.12 had been challenged after a period of 40 years of execution of mutation as such the suit of the plaintiff- appellant
