G.N.Prasad, J.

1. This is an appeal by defendants Nos. 1 to 3, 5, 7, 8 and 16, and it arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff (respondent No. 1) for declaration of his title and confirmation or, in the alternative, recovery of possession over 13,42 acres of land Appertaining to Khatas 67 and 68 in village Khurmabad (Old Tauzi No. 6361 corresponding to new Tauzi No. 12173), and for a further declaration that an award of the arbitrators dated the 3rd September 1947 is void, inoperative, fraudulent and not binding upon the plaintiff.

2. It is common ground that in the survey record of rights (Exts G/1 and G-1/1), the suit lands stood recorded in the names of Jageshwar Mahto and Damri Mahto, sons of Jhakri Mahto. Defendants 1 to 8 are the sons of Jageshwar Mahto and defendant No. 16 is the sou of Damri Mahto. Defendants 4 to 10 are other members of the same family. There were several properties of the Tauzi. One of them was Chaudhary Keshari Sahai Singh who had -/6/5 pies proprietary interests. In 1918, Choudhary Keshari Sahai Singh instituted a batch of rent suits against several tenants. Rent Suit No. 464 of 1918 in respect of khata No. 67, and Rent Suit No. 474 of 1918 in respect of khata No. 68, were instituted against Subhag Koeri, another brother of defendants 1 to 3. Another suit of the same batch, namely, Kent suit No. 477 of 1918 was instituted against Dilbaso Kuer and Kawalbas Kuer, widows of one Baldeo Singh. All these rent suits were decreed, on admission of the defendants as to the incorrectness of the survey entries, against Dilbaso Kuer and Kawalbas Kuer only. The judgment of the rent suits, which was passed on the 32nd May 1919, is on the record as Ext. 18(a).

On the 5th December 1923, Dalbaso Kuer and Kawalbas Kuer, along with one Jagrup Singh, executed a sale deed (Ext.1) in respect of the lands of Katha Nos 67, and 68, besides other Khatas, in favour of Radha Mohan Singh, a brother of the plaintiff. Subsequently, in November 1940, by a partition between the two brothers, the lands of Khata Nos. 67, and 68 were allotted exclusively to the plaintiff. Meanwhile, the proprietary interest of Choudhary Keshari Sahai Singh was acquired by Choudhary Bhagwat Saran Singh, the father of the plaintiff, who thereupon became the sixteen annas proprietor of the Tauzi. In 1936, the plaintiff was mutated along with certain other persons in place of Choudhary Bhagwat Saran Singh in respect of the entire proprietary interest in the Tauzi. But in 1941, the plaintiff alone was mutated in respect of sixteen annas interest in the Tauzi.

3. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit lands are his bakasht over which he has all along been in possession since after the execution of the sale deed (Ext.1) in favour of his brother by Mossmat Dilbaso Kuer and Kawalbas Kuer. In the year 1947, there was an agrarian trouble in the village, and the heirs of the recorded tenants put forward a claim to the disputed lands. However, in order, to ease the situation, the plaintiff entered into an agreement with the defendants, who are the members of the family of the recorded tenants, to refer the dispute with respect to the suit lancis to the arbitration of certain persons. Accordingly, on the 8th July 1947, a registered deed of agreement (Ext.B/1) was executed by the plaintiff, on the one side, and Rambilas Matho (defendant No. 1) representing defendants Nos. 1 to 10 and 16, on the other, appointing five arbitrators, namely, Adit Pande (defendant No. 11), Badri Pande (defendant No. 12), Mahesh Pandey (defendant No. 13), Dadri Tewari (defendant No. 14), Mir Ismil Hussain (defendant No. 15) and one Subhekha Pande who is since dead and who was the brother of Mahesh Pande (defendant No. 13).

Subsequently, the plaintiff lost his confidence in the arbitrators and on the 1st September 1947, he posted a notice to the arbitrators, asking them not to give any award because they were in collusion with the defendants. The notice, which is on the