S.N.Pathak, J.

1. This Second Appeal has been preferred against the judgment of the 1st Appellate Court passed by the Sub-Judge, Khagaria, in Title Appeal No. 9 of 1984 whereby the learned Sub-Judge set aside the judgment of the trial Court passed in Title Suit No. 10 of 1983 dismissing the same.

2. The case of the plaintiff-respondent in the lower Court was that a piece of land bearing plot No. 156 in khata No. 138 was taken settlement from the ex-landlord by one Makhan Tanti. This Makhan Tanti had no male issue although he had only daughter, namely, Bahuri Devi. So, the land measuring 6 kathas was sold by Makhan Tanti to his only daughter Bahuri Devi by registered sale-deed dated 14-12-1962. Bahuri Devi came in possession of the land, but she died leaving behind her son Sadanand Sharma, a plaintiff of the suit. Sadanand Sharma incurred some loan while performing Shradha ceremony of his mother. The plaintiffs father also died. So, Makhan Tanti under whose guardianship the plaintiff was, sold 4 kathas of land out of 6 kathas to one Mosmat Hasina, who was the purchaser of the 4 kathas of land on 29-5-1973. However, the plaintiff continued in possession on 2 kathas of land which was the suit land as described in schedule of the plaint. The plaintiffs maternal grandfather also died and then the plaintiffs came under the guardianship of one Bhumi Pandit. When the plaintiff became major and went to pay rent to the State in the year 1982, he came to know that the defendant-appellant had got his name entered in Jamabandi No. 66 on the basis of parcha granted to him under the Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). This parcha was issued fraudulently with the help of one Gholti Pandit, in whose house the defendant-appellant lived. So, the plaintiff-respondent sought declaration that the parcha was obtained fraudulently and it was illegal, inoperative and without jurisdiction. The plaintiff still claimed of the possession of the suit land.

3. The case of the defendant-appellant was that of course, Makhan Tanti had acquired the suit land by settlement from the ex-landlord, but the sale-deed concerned executed by Makhan to Mosmat Hasina was a forged document and the plaintiff was never in possession of the suit land. However, it was not denied that the plaintiff-respondent was the nati of Makhan Tanti. It was also not denied that Makhan Tanti had only the female issue Bahuri Devi, who was mother of the plaintiff. The substantive case of the defendant-appellant was that in the year 1950, he occupied the suit land of 2 kathas with the consent of Makhan Tanti and he constructed his house and since then he has been coming in possession over the same. He was privileged person and, therefore, he applied for settlement of the suit land and after due inquiry, the parcha was issued in his name in case No. 7 of 1975-76. After issuance of the parcha holding No. 165 was obtained in the same jamabandi No. 66 and the defendant has been paying rent to the State of Bihar since then. However, in the month of June, 1982, the plaintiff came to Kazichak and requested the defendant to allow him to stay in the suit house fora few days. The defendant allowed the plaintiff to stay in the verandah of the house, but with the help of anti-social elements of the village the plaintiff forcibly entered inside the house and drove away the family members of the defendant. Then there was a criminal came in the Gram Panchayat in which the plaintiff was convicted and sentenced to pay a fire of Rs. 50.00 . The plaintiff his statement before the Gram Panchayat on 26-11-82 admitted that he had been allowed to stay in the verandah and he forcibly evicted the defendants family.

4. The trial Court dismissed the suit on the grounds, inter alia, that the suit was barred under Sec. 34 of the Specific Relief Act and that the defendant was privileged person under the Act and the parcha was rightly granted to him and that the defendant w