Ahmad, J.

1. In the suit, which has given rise to this appeal, the sole plaintiff, who are a private limited concern, with their registered office at 3 Chandmari Road, Calcutta, seek reliefs for declaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of lands specified in Schedules B and C of the plaint along with structures standing thereon and in the alternative for a sum of Rs. 90,000.00 as also for some other incidental claims. The suit was tried by Mr. Chandra Mouleshwar Prasad, Additional Subordinate Judge, Purnea. He in his opinion came to the conclusion that though, as admitted by the parties, the title in the lands originally lay with the plaintiff and the claim for it was not barred by time and though there was no conveyance of sale in favour of the contesting defendant, who are also a private limited concern, executed and registered by the plaintiff, as contemplated by Sec. 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, they in their possession were protected by the doctrine of part performance, as provided in Sec. 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act and accordingly he dismissed the suit by his judgment and decree dated the 28th January, 1956. Therefore the plaintiff have now come in appeal and it has been pressed in this Court mainly on two grounds (1) that the finding of the trial Court on the question of part performance cannot be supported either in law or on facts as they stand on the record and (2) that therefore, the trial Court in any case should have allowed the relief for possession, if not on the alleged contract dated 7th June, 1944, at least on the footing of the admitted title. In my opinion, both these two points are unassailable. But it does not mean that the case on the footing of the alleged contract dated 7th June, 1944 has not been stressed at all.

On the other hand, Mr. Das appearing for the plaintiff has advanced some contention on that ground also though it must be said to his credit that not with the same vehemence and I think rightly for that is not borne out by the evidence on the record and, therefore to that extent the judgment of the trial Court has to be left undisturbed.

2. The area of Schedule B land is 20 bighas, 12 kathas and 8 dhurs and that of Schedule C land 4 bighas, 12 kathas and 10 dhurs and they together with another area of 2 bighas and 1 katha from one block lying at Katihar by the side of the plaintiffs Jute Mills there. It is the admitted case of the parties that this entire block of land was originally acquired by the plaintiff company on 9th April 1935 in the form of dar mokarrari lease from one Hajia Bibi in the name of their the then Manager Radha Kishun Chamaria, who has been impleaded on the record of this case as the second defendant.

3. At that time and till long thereafter the shares of the plaintiff company were all owned and held in fact only by the three Chamarias, namely, (1) Radha Kishun Chamaria (defendant No. 2 and P. W. 1), (2) his brother Motilal Chamaria (P.W. 5) and (3) their common relation Ratanlal Chamaria (P.W.2) & their interest therein during that period was in the ratio of six annas, six annas and four annas respectively. In 1943 the plaintiff company while they were in that state entered into a new adventure under the name and style of Calcutta Match Works, Katihar, and that was located on the newly purchased land of the plaintiff though with this difference in the contention of the parties in that regard that according to the plaintiff it was located only on the Schedule B land while according to the defendant on the whole of the aforesaid 27 bighas, 5 kathas and 18 dhurs of land.

Then came the next development, that is, on 23rd March, 1944, this new business was converted into an independent private limited company under the name and style of Calcutta Match Works (India) Ltd. with their head office at 178 Harrison Road, Calcutta, who are in this case the chief contesting defendant and are represented on the record by the Official Liquidator