1. This appeal by the plaintiff arises put of a suit for declaration that the kebala dated the 11th November,1951, executed by Bibi Sirejan widow of Sk. Doman in favour of respondents Nos. 1 and 5 (defendants Nos. 1 and 2) and that dated the 26th February, 1952, executed by Bibi Sairunnissa daughter of Sk. Doman in favour of respondent No. 8 (defendant No. 3) were illegal, without Consideration and did not affect the appellants right to the suit lands as she was a prior purchaser. A prayer was further made for confirmation of possession, in the alternative, for recovery of possession as also for carving out a share to the extent of 1 bigha 13 kathas 13½ dhurs in her favour after partition of Schedules 2 and 3 lands.

2. On the case of both the parties, 5 bighas 15 kathas 12 dhurs of land of village Dilawarpur, described in Schedule 1 of the plaint, belonged to and was in possession of one Sk. Doman. The entire land was sold in execution of the decree passed in Rent Suit No. 1369 of 1936 for arrears of rent. It was purchased in auction sale by the decree-holder who also took delivery of possession. Sk. Doman died leaving behind three sons, five daughters and a widow. On his death, three of his sons filed an application under Order 21, Rule 58, Code of Civil-Procedure, (Miscellaneous Case No. 157 of 1938), but it was dismissed. Thereafter the five daughters and the widow of Doman filed an application under Order 21, Rule 90, Code of Civil Procedure, (Miscellaneous Case No. 117 of 1948), for setting aside the sale. This application was also dismissed but at the appellate stage (Misc. Appeal No. 66 of 1950) a compromise was arrived at between the parties as a result of which 1 bigha 10 kathas 17¼ dhurs out of the auction-sold lands (Schedule 3 of the plaint) was given to the five daughters and the widow of Sk. Doman. By the said compromise, the title of the five daughters and the widow of Sk. Doman and their possession over this land was accepted (the sons of Doman having nothing to do with it) and the claim over the rest of the auction-sold lands by the aforesaid female heirs of Sk. Doman was given up.

3. Out of the aforesaid female heirs of Sk. Doman, two of his daughters, Sairunnissa and Zulekha, and his widow Sirajan executed a sale deed in favour of the appellant on the 22nd of October, 1951 (Exhibit 1). By this document they sold their entire share which they had got by means of the above compromise in Misc. Appeal No. 66 of 1950, arising out of Miscellaneous Case No. 117 of 1948. The share of the vendors was to the extent of one-half of 1 bigha 10 kathas 17 dhurs and odd as indicated by the petition of compromise (Exhibit 4).

4. The contesting defendants (respondents Nos. 2 to 4), inter alia, challenged that Sairunnissa and Zulekha were the daughters of Sk. Doman. According to them, they were daughters of Sk. Budhu, the former husband of Sirajan, after whose death she married Sk. Doman. According to them, the appellant had not acquired any title to the suit lands much less possession over them.

5. The learned Munsif, on a consideration of the evidence adduced in the case, came to the conclusion that Sairunnissa and Zulekha were daughters of Sk. Doman; that by the compromise (Exhibit 4) in Misc. Appeal No. 66 of 1950 the entire area of 1 bigha 10 kathas 17¼ dhurs was conveyed to the five daughters and the widow of Sk. Doman in which the vendors of the appellant held half share; that the kebala (Exhibit 1), dated the 22nd October, 1951, executed in favour of the appellant, was valid, genuine and for consideration and that the sale deeds dated the 11th November, 1951 and the 26th February, 1952, executed in favour of respondents Nos. 1 and 5 and respondent No. 8, respectively, did not convey any title to them. Plot No. 328 (Schedule 4 of the plaint) was held to have not formed part of the aforesaid compromise.

6. On appeal, the learned Additional Subordinate Judge found that Sirajan had not joined in the execution of th