K.B.N.SINGH, J.

1. This appeal, by Defendant No. 1, arises out of a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of 2.28 acres of land, appertaining to Plots Nos. 577, 578, 608, 681 and 1136 of Khata No. 106, situated in Village Chainpur, District Ranehi.

2. The plaintiffs case in short is that the disputed lands were Bhumihari lands of Shital Pahan, uncle and grand-uncle of the plaintiffs. Shital Pahan had leased out the disputed lands to defendants ancestor, Sheikh Saifu, on an annual rental of Rs. 1/4/- as a temporary tenant, and after him his heirs, the defendants, held the disputed land as tenants at will, liable to be ejected from the lands at the sweet will of the lessor. The lease in question, under the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act could not be for more than five years, neither could occupancy right accrue to the lessee, Shaikh Saifu, or his heirs. After the death of Shital Pahan, the plaintiffs inherited the disputed lands as his heirs and successors-in-interest, and they verbally asked the defendants to vacate the suit lands, but the defendants did not pay heed to it. Thereafter the plaintiffs sent notices under Certificate of Posting as well as under Registered post, asking the defendants to give up possession of the suit lands, to which also the defendants paid no heed and thereafter the suit was filed for the aforesaid relief.

3. Defendant No. 1 (the appellant), son of Shaikh Saifu, Defendant No. 3 Shaikh Sehajuddin, Defendant No. 5 Shaikh Sahabuddin and Defendant No. 6 Shaikh Allauddin (the other heirs of Shaikh Saifu), filed separate written statements, but contested the suit jointly. The case of the appellant, which in substance is also the case of the other defendants, is that they denied that their ancestor, Shaikh Saifu, had taken the lands on any lease from Shital Pahan on annual rental. His case, on the other hand, is that Shaikh Shifu purchased the disputed lands 40 years prior to the filing of the written statement in 1963 for a consideration of Rs. 100.00 and he had ever since been in possession. Shaikh Saifu remained in possesion of the disputed lands for more than 12 years, without payment of rent and acquired indefeasible title by adverse possession and remained in possession till his death about 15 years prior to the filing of the written statement. After his death, the defendants came in possession of the disputed lands and have all along been in possession of the same. There was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the suit was barred by limitation and adverse possession. The appellant, in the alternative, also pleaded that even if assuming, but not admitting, that Shaikh Saifu entered into possession of the suit lands under a void lease, then he was a trespasser from the very beginning and was in possession of the suit lands without payment of rent, under a notorious claim of title and has acquired title by adverse possession as occupancy Raiyat of the disputed lands. The service of notice by the plaintiffs for vacating the suit lands is also denied. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suit was also challenged.

4. The trial court found that the disputed land was leased out by Shital Pahan to Shaikh Saifu for cultivation on annual rental of Rs. 1/4/- and not that Shaikh Saifu had purchased the lands from Shital Pahan. Not only Shaikh Saifu, but the appellant also paid rent and that the defendants are tenants in respect of the disputed lands under the plaintiffs and paid rent till the year 1949. The defendants are tenants from year to year or tenants-at-will under the plaintiffs. The defendants did not acquire permanent tenancy by virtue of adverse possession and failure to pay rent from 1949 till the institution of the suit in 1962 would not create any title. The defendants denied title of the plaintiffs sometime in the years 1953 to 1955 and the suit having been instituted in 1962, being within twelve years, was not barred by l