Tarkeshwar Nath, J.

1. This application in revision by defendant No. 1 is directed against the order of the learned Munsif refusing him (defendant No. 11 the permission to cross-examine the witnesses of the plaintiffs on the question of title to the house in suit and the validity of service of the notice under Sec.106 of the Transfer of Property Act.

2. The facts giving rise to this application are these. The opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 (plaintiffs) filed a title suit against the petitioner for recovery of arrears of rent and for evicting him from the house bearing holding No. 117 in Ward No. 10 of the Gaya Municipality The case of the plaintiffs was that the said house was allotted to Bipat Ram, father of plaintiffs 1 and 2 in a private family partition in the year 1933 and after the death of Bipat Ram, it was inherited by his three sons, Shiva Shankar Prasad, Hari Kishun Das and Sarju Prasad in equal shares. The right, title and interest oi Sarju Prasad was sold in the year 1956 in Execution Case No, 1100 of 1656 in satisfaction of a decree obtained by one Shyammani Devi and the said interest was purchased by Gaya Prasad Dubey. On 20-6-1962 Gaya Prasad Dubey sold his inter