The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a thorough investigation of facts and legal principles related to adverse possession, revenue sale, and the position of a person holding property under a void lease before reaching a decision.

Reuben, J.

1. This is an appeal by the pltfs. from a decision of the Addl. Dist. J. Purulia, confirming a decree of the Addl. Subordinate Judge, Dhanbad.

2. Pltf. 1 is the proprietor of village Muraidih in pargana Newagarh of the Dhanbad Sub-division. Pltf. 2 is his minor son. Pltf. 1 has executed in favour of his son a mokarari lease in respect of 25 bighas of coal bearing land in this village. The suit was brought to eject the defts. from five kathas out of this land, on the allegation that they have wrongfully taken possession of a coal quarry therein sunk by the pltf. 1. Defendant 2 is the son of deft. 1. They contested the suit, alleging that they are holding the suit land as a part of 46 bighas of coal-bearing land in this village, the surface & underground rights in which were settled with deft. 1 in 1910 by the then proprietors, Shyamlal Pande & others under an unregistered grant, & claiming to have acquired an indefeasible interest in the land by holding it adversely since then.

3. Pltf. 1 is the son of Shyamlal Pande, but does not derive his title by inheritance from him. According to the reoitals in the plaint, this village was sold in execution of a mtge. decree against the, proprietors Brijbehari Pande (uncle of pltf. l) & others, & was purchased by Mukteshwar Trigunait, Sarat Trigunait & Kalipada Trigunait, from whom pltf. 1 purchased the village by a registered sale deed dated the 2nd of Baisakh, 1338. The mauza was then sold in a revenue sale & was purchased by one Sachindranath Chakravarti Pltf. 1 brought a title suit to set aside the sale. In accordance with a compromise in the suit, Sachindranath Chakravarti sold the mauza to pltf. 1 by a registered sale deed dated 6-7-1940.

4. The hukumnama (Ex. A) under which the defts. claim is unregistered & purports to create a permanent heritable jagir. The Cts. below have accepted the stocy of the alleged settlement & hold that deft. 1 entered on the property in pursuance of it, but he did so as a trespasser, the hukumnama being unregistered. They hold that since then he has been continuously in possession of the whole area of 46 bighas. They have rejected the story of pltf. 1 having sunk a quarry in the suit land & having been forcibly dispossessed in 1944. Only three instances of the exercise of direct possession over the property have been found : (1) the sinking & working of a quarry to the north of the suit land for a period of over twenty years, (2) the sinking & working of a quarry to the east of the suit land in 1937 & (3) the sinking & working of a quarry on the suit land in 1943 The Cts. below consider that, the deft. I having entered under a grant from the proprietors, his act of possession over any portion of the property must be deemed to have given him constructive possession over the whole of the property covered by the grant. On these findings they hold that deft. 1 has been in possession of the suit property openly, peacefully & as of right for more than twenty years, that he has thereby acquired a tenancy right under pltf. 1 & cannot be ejected.

5. Mr. De, on behalf of the pltfs. has contended, firstly, that the Cts. below misdirected themselves on the point of adverse possession in holding that the defts. had constructive possession over the suit property previous to 1943, & secondly, that, even if it be held that the defts. were in adverse possession of this property, their possession cannot affect pltf. l, as he derives his title from a purohaser at a revenue sale.

6. On the other side, Mr. R. S. Chatterji, who appeared for the defts. 1 & 2, has contended that, under Sec. 53A, T. P. Act, his clients are entitled to resist ejectment.

7. Before taking up the question of adverse possession, I shall deal with the other two points which are readily disposed of neither of them having been raised in the Cts. below.

8. There is no substance in Mr. Des second point. Under Sec.37, Bengal Land Revenue Sales Act, 1859 (Act XI [11] of 1859), a purchase