Judgment

RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J. : This appeal, on a certificate granted by the High Court of Judicature at Patna, arises in the following circumstances:

2. The plaintiffs-respondents sued the appellants for the recovery of possession of the disputed lands and mesne profits as the family of the defendants did not have any raiyati interest in the disputed lands except rehan interest under the rehan deed dated July 3, 1906, and that, subsequent to the redemption of that deed, they had no right to remain in possession and occupation of the disputed lands.

3. The plaintiffs alleged that Pranpat Bhagat and others held eight annas share of milkiat interest in village Sevathra, Pargana Nonapur, tauzi no 3879 and that the other eight annas share was held by Kunj Bhihari Bhagat and others. These persons also held khudkast lands in the village and that such lands were treated as kasht lands. In 1906 Ram Autar Bhagat, one of members of the joint family of Pranpat Bhagat, executed the mortgage deed with respect to 15 bighas of land out of 16 bighas of kasht lands, to Sheo Dehin Ahir, on behalf of his joint family. The defendants entered into possession on the basis of that mortgage deed, they having had no connection with the land mortgaged prior to the execution of the mortgage deed.

4. Later on in 1912, Ram Lal Bhagat and Munni Bhagat, of Pranpat s family, executed another mortgage deed with respect to their entire milkiat interest in favour of Jatan Ahir and Ram Saran Ahir who also belonged to the family of Sheo Dehin Ahir. They then got into possession of the fresh land which had been mortgaged.

5. Ram Lal Bhagat and others sold their milkiat share together with the kasht lands to the plaintiffs in 1915. The plaintiffs entered into possession of the milkiat property and subsequently redeemed the mortgage deeds in 1943. The plaintiffs also purchased four annas share belonging to the branch of Kunj Bibari Bhagat. The other four annas share of that branch was purchased by Raja Singh who then sold it to Ram Ekbal Singh, impleaded as defendant No. 6 in the plaint. The defendants, however, did not make over possession of the land in suit after the mortgage deeds had been redeemed and hence the suit was instituted for a declaration and recovery of possession.

6. The defendants 1 to 5 did not admit the allegations made by the plaintiffs and stated the real state of affairs to be that the disputed lands were never the bakasht lands of the proprietors of the village and were really the raiyati qaimi kasht lands of the defendants, that the plaintiffs never purchased the disputed lands, that the disputed lands were the raiyati kasht lands of Ram Autar Bhagat only, who let out the disputed lands in rehan under different rehan deeds alleging them to be raiyati kasht lands and who had earlier treated it as his exclusive raiyati kasht lands, and that, ultimately, Ram Autar Bhagat sold the disputed lands to the defendants and got their names entered as qaimi raiyati kashtkars. It was further alleged that the defendants had acquired title to the land in suit by virtue of adverse possession.

7. The trial Court found that the plaintiffs had no subsisting title to the lands in suit as those lands were not sold to the plaintiffs who had purchased the milkiat interest including the bakasht & zerat lands, that the suit was barred by adverse possession also and that it was barred by limitation. It therefore dismissed the suit.

8.On appeal, the High Court held that the plaintiffs did purchase the land in suit and that the defendants were in possession only as mortgagees and that, after the redemption of the mortgage, they had no right to continue in possession. It therefore allowed the appeal and decreed the plaintiffs suit. The defendants have now filed this appeal.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants has urged five points:

(1) The record of right supported the case of the defendants that they were the qaimi raiyats and that the High Court wrongly construed them.

(2) Th