1. This is an appeal by the defendant-appellant. The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession in respect of 2 kathas 3 dhurs of land of survey plot No.229/1022 of khata No.286 situate in village Hansrajpur Khurd, police station Baniapur in the district of Saran after declaring that the sale deed dated 3-7-1962 executed by defendant No.3 in favour of defendant No.1 was a farzi and fraudulent transaction and was not binding on the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs claimed that the disputed land belonged to them and was in their possession since before the Revisional Survey. The ex-landlords filed a rent suit for realisation of rent of khata Nos.286 and 288 and obtained a decree. The decree was put in execution and the holding was auction-sold in 1925. The original plaintiff claimed that he along with Nathuni Sah, father of defendant No.1, had jointly purchased the said holding in the auction sale but in the farzi name of one Bhaju Sah who was a relation of Nathuni Sah. According to the plaintiff, Bhaju Sah did not pay any single pie in the auction purchase and never had any concern with the auction purchased land. The plaintiff continued in possession of the disputed land of khata No.286. The plaintiffs further case is that defendant No.1 with intent to derive illegal gain dishonestly got a sale deed executed by defendant No.3, son of Bhaju Sah, in respect of the disputed land on 3-7-1962 without paying any consideration. The plaintiff also claimed that the suit land had been in his possession since more than 12 years openly and his title to the same had also been perfected by adverse possession.

2. Defendant No.1 only contested the suit and it was contended on his behalf that the suit as framed was not maintainable and was barred by S.66 of the Civil P.C. According to the defendant-appellant. Bhaju Sah had no concern with Nathuni Sah. The lands had been purchased by Bhaju Sah alone in the auction sale and neither Nathuni nor the plaintiff had any concern therewith. According to the defendant, the plaintiff never came in possession over the disputed land and Bhaju was not a benamidar.

3. The suit was decreed on contest by the trial court. The trial Court held that the auction purchase in question in the name of Bhaju Sah was benami for Nathuni Sah and that the original plaintiff, and after his death the substituted plaintiffs acquired title to the suit land by adverse possession as well. The appeal by defendant No.1 was dismissed by the lower Appellate Court and the findings of the trial Court were affirmed.

4. Mr. Janardan Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, contended that in view of the case of the plaintiffs that the original plaintiff had purchased the disputed land in the benami name of Bhaju Sah and the findings arrived at by the courts below, the plaintiffs cannot maintain the suit as the same was barred by S.66 of the Civil P.C. Mr. Sinha relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in S.M. Karim V/s. Mst. Bibi Sakina (AIR 1964 SC 1254) wherein it was held that Sec. 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that no suit shall be maintained against any person claiming title under a purchase certified by the court on the ground that the purchase was made on behalf of the plaintiff or on behalf of someone through whom the plaintiff claims. It is obvious that the plaintiffs cannot maintain the suit claiming title under a benami nature of transaction. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff-respondents does not dispute this proposition. He, however, submitted that the plaintiffs perfected their title by long and uninterrupted possession and in view of the findings given by both the courts as regards adverse possession of the plaintiffs, this appeal should be dismissed.

5. It is no doubt true that the plaintiffs can take an alternative plea that they had acquired title by adverse possession, but then they cannot rely upon the benami nature of transac