S.K.Katriar, J.

1. The defendant is the appellant against the judgment of affirmance. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 4.6.1987, passed by the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur, in Title Appeal No. 36 of 1984/2 of 1986 Ram Lagan Rai alias Lakhan Rai V/s. Deokinandan Rai and Ors., whereby he has affirmed the judgment and decree dated 5.6.1984, passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sub-Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur, in Title Suit No. 35 of 1976/7 of 1984 Deoki Nandan Rai V/s. Ram Lagan Rai and Anr.. The learned trial Court had decreed the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession with respect to plot No. 47. We shall go by the description of the parties occurring in the plaint.

2. The case of the plaintiff (respondent) as per the plaint is that one Birjoo Mahto son of Akloo Mahto, owned and possessed one block of one and half bighas of land in village Harbanshpur. He transferred ten kathas of land from the northern extremity of the aforesaid block of land, being plot No. 46, to a defendant No. 1 (appellant), by a registered sale deed dated 8.4.1953. He subsequently transferred ten kathas of land from the southern extremity of the aforesaid block of land bearing plot No. 48, by a registered sale deed dated 11.7.1962, to defendant No. 1 (the appellant). Defendant No. 1 (appellant) came in possession of the vended portions of the block of land measuring twenty kathas. The remaining 10 kathas of land in the middle remained in possession of Birjoo Mahto, On his death, the defendant second set (heirs of Birjoo Mahto) came in possession of the middle portion of the land, bearing plot No. 47, who transferred the same to the plaintiff by a registered sale deed dated 22.12.1969 and he came in possession of the land which is the suit property. The plaintiff (respondent) subsequently discovered that there was already a sale deed dated 19.8.1966 (Exhibit-B), in favour of defendant No. 1 (appellant), with respect to the suit land. Defendant No. 1 got his name mutated over the suit land. Hence the suit for declaration of title and consequential reliefs.

3. Defendant No. 1 (appellant) filed written statement challenging the suit. According to the written statement, Birjoo Mahto, the rightful owner, had already vended the remaining portion of the block of land by a registered sale-deed dated 19.8.1966, the defendant second set did not acquire any right, title and interest to transfer the same to the plaintiff. Defendant No. 1 (appellant) has amalgamated the suit land with rest of his lands acquired in the aforesaid manner. The defendant has also perfected his title by adverse possession. The plaintiff (respondent), therefore, acquired no title by his sale deed and hence the suit is fit to be dismissed. 3.1. The defendant second set (the heirs of Birjoo Mahto) did not contest the suit, rather supported the plaintiffs case.

4. The learned trial Court framed the following issues for adjudication :-

-

(1) Whether the suit as framed is maintainable?

(2) Whether the plaintiff has got cause of action to bring the suit?

(3) Whether the sale deed dated 19.8.1966, allegedly executed by Birjoo Mahto in favour of defendant No. 1, is genuine and valid?

(4) Whether the plaintiff has proved his title over the suit property?

(5) To what relief or reliefs, if any, is the plaintiff entitled?

5. I would first of all like to specify the area of dispute. Birjoo Mahto, the owner, had alienated plot No. 46 and plot No. 48 by registered deeds of absolute sale dated 8.4.1953 (Exhibit-3), and 11.7.1962 (Exhibit-3/b), respectively in favour of defendant No. 1 (the appellant). The suit relates to declaration of title with respect to plot No. 47 which is situate between plot Nos. 46 and 48. Defendant No. 1 (appellant) claims title to plot No. 47 by means of a registered sale deed dated 19.8.1966 (Exhibit-B), executed by the said Birjoo Mahto, in favour of defendant No. 1, whereas the plaintiff (respond