A transferee having acquired title under an invalid transaction, and continuing in possession for more than twelve years, would be deemed to have acquired a perfectly good title to the property.

Raj Kishore Prasad, J.

1. This is an appeal under the Letters Patent, against the judgment of Mr. Justice Misra, affirming the judgment of the Court of appeal below, and dismissing the appeal of defendants 1 to 13, who were the principal defendants.

2. The only question for determination in the present appeal and, which has been canvassed at the bar, is the question of adverse possession.

3. For a proper appraisal and determination of this question, it is necessary to set out briefly the facts:

4. The plaintiffs-respondents, who are landlords, brought the present suit in ejectment, in respect of plot No. 963, under khata No. 299, in village Poiwan. This khata was recorded as bhaoli kasht land of one Kalicharan Singh, after whose death defendants 1 to 3 came in possession thereof. These defendants, representing their family, consisting of defendants 1 to 13, sold the land to defendant No, 14 on the 21st December, 1923. Defendant No. 14, in his turn, sold the disputed land orally to the plaintiffs in 1927 for Rs. 300/-. The plaintiffs case is that they came and remained in possession of the land by virtue of the oral purchase from 1927 till the 26th June, 1947. On the 26th October, 1940, they got a registered sale deed executed by defendant No. 14 in their favour. Thereafter, there were criminal proceedings between the parties, which, ultimately, on the 26th June, 1947, resulted in an adverse order passed against the plaintiffs in a proceeding under sec. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The plaintiffs, accordingly, on the 6th December, 1947, filed the present suit for declaration of title, and recovery of possession.

5. The suit was contested By defendants 1 to 3. Their defence was that the sale of 1923 executed by them in favour of defendant No. 14 was a farzi transaction, and defendant No. 14 neither paid any consideration for, nor, did he get possession of the land under it, and the land always remained in their possession. Their further defence was that the sale deed executed by defendant No. 14 in favour of the plaintiffs in 1940 was a sham transaction. They also denied that there was an oral sale by defendant No. 14 in favour of the plaintiffs in 1927.

6. Defendant No. 14 did not contest the suit, but filed a separate written statement, in which he admitted that the sale of 1923- in his favour was a farzi transaction, and was executed without any consideration. He, however, admitted that in 1927 the disputed land had been sold orally by him to the plaintiffs, at the instance of the defendants 1 to 3, for Rs. 300.00 and, that he made over this consideration money to defendant No. 2 after getting it from the plaintiffs. Defendant No. 14 also admitted that the plaintiffs came in possession of the suit lands in 1927, and that at the instance of the plaintiffs he executed a registered sale deed in 1940 in favour of the plaintiffs.

7. The learned Munsif came to the conclusion that the sale deed of 1923 was a farzi transaction, and defendant No. 14 did not get possession of the land conveyed by the sale. He also found that the plaintiffs had failed to prove their possession within twelve years of the suit. On these findings, he dismissed the plaintiffs suit,

8. On appeal by the plaintiffs, the learned Subordinate Judge reversed the judgment and de-wee of the first court and decreed the plaintiffs suit. He agreed with the first court that the sale deed of 1923 was a farzi transaction, but he disagreed with the finding of the first court on the question of plaintiffs possession, and found that the plaintiffs got into possession of the suit land in 1927 by virtue of the oral purchase from defendant No. 14. He further found that defendant No. 14, with the knowledge and consent of defendants 1 to 3, on receiving Rs. 300/-, allowed the plaintiffs to cultivate the lands in 1927.

9. The defendants, therefore, preferred a second appeal to this court, which was heard and decided by Mr. Justice Misra. His Lordship upheld the j