An unregistered award is not admissible in evidence for the purpose of ascertaining the properties which were partitioned between the parties, but it is admissible for the purpose of showing that the parties acted upon the award and have been in possession of the properties as having exclusive title therein in terms of the award.

1. This first appeal arises out of a judgment and decree dated 14-10-1980, passed by Sri Ram Chandra Prasad, Ist Addl. Sub-Judge, Ranchi, in Title Suit No. 56/6 of 1976/79, whereby and whereunder the said learned Court dismissed the plaintiffs appellants suit.

2. The original plaintiff Saheb Ali filed the aforementioned suit for a declaration of title in respect of the suit property as also for confirmation of possession and in the alternative for a decree for recovery of possession thereof.

3. According to the plaintiff he and the defendant No. 4 are the successors-in-interest of one Balak Mian.

4. The genealogy of the parties as stated in the written statement is as follows:

5. The plaintiff has asserted in the plaint that Sk. Mohd. Hussain died in the year 1960 whereas Sk. Ameer, father of Sk. Bipta died before the preparation of the survey settlement records of right.

6. The plaintiffs have further asserted that Kasua widow of aforementioned Sk. Ameer remarried and she took with her to her newly wedded home, Sk. Bipta also. According to the plaintiffs thus, Sk. Bipta was never in possession of any portion of the properties of the aforementioned Balak Mian, and the plaintiff being in sole and exclusive possession acquired perfect and indefeasible title thereto.

7. It was asserted that defendant No. 1 is the purchaser from defendant No. 4. Defendant No. 2 is the husband of defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 3 is the brother of defendant No. 2.

8. It was stated that as there had been a dispute with regard to the possession of the properties in suit, a proceeding under S. 145, Cr. P.C. was started being M.P. Case No.1072 of 1968. The said proceeding was dropped and as in the said proceeding title of the plaintiff was challenged, the plaintiff filed the aforementioned suit.

9. In the instant case, the defendants Nos. 1 to 3 have filed one set of written statement and defendant No. 4 filed a separate written statement. The defence of the defendants is that the defendant No. 4 was all along in possession of the properties in the suit as a co-sharer. The further defence of the said defendant is that on 27-5-1958, a joint application was filed by defendant No. 4 and the original plaintiff before the Panches for partition of their properties, in respect whereof disputes and differences had arisen amongst the parties. The said joint application was marked as Exh. D by the learned Court below. On the same day, panchanama award was made by the said Panches, which was marked as Exh. H, wherein the properties were divided by and between the original plaintiff and defendant No. 4 in equal shares. The defendants have further asserted that the said panchanama award had been acted upon by the parties. It has been further asserted that the contention of the plaintiff to the effect that defendant No. 4 had never been in possession of the properties is wrong inasmuch as his name had been entered in Register II and he has been paying rent in respect of the suit properties. The defendants further asserted that both the parties had transferred their right, title and interest to a 3rd party in terms of the aforementioned Panchanama award, Ext. H, and their respective purchasers were also put in possession of their respective purchased lands.

10. The defendants have further asserted that the suit is a speculative one.

11. On the basis of the aforementioned pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues: (1) Has the plaintiff cause of action for the suit? (2) Is the suit maintainable as framed? (3) Has the suit land been properly valued and is the Court-fee paid sufficient? (4) Is the suit barred by limitation? (5) Is the suit bad for misjoinder of parties? (6) Is the panchanama genuine document acted upon by the parties? (7) Has the plaintiff title to and possession over the suit properties? (8) Is the plaintiff entitled to the decree as claimed? (9) To what relief or reliefs, if any, the plaintiff is entitled?

12. The learned Court b