Syed Md.Mahfooz Alam, J.

1. This second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 19.2.1990 passed by Sri Anant Prasad Shrivastava, District Judge, Sitamarhi in Title Appeal No. 35 of 1989 whereby he has been pleased to set aside the judgment and decree dated 12.7.1989 passed by Sri Narendra Mishra, Subordinate Judge III, Sitamarhi in Title Suit No. 15/87/10/89 by which judgment he had decreed the suit of the plaintiffs.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

Appellant Sudhir Kumar Thakur had filed Title Suit No. 15 of 1987 in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Sitamarhi for declaring that the sale deed dated 30.12.1986 executed by Ram Rakshi Devi defendant no. 2 in favour of defendant no. 1, Saheb Mandal, is fraudulent, illegal and without consideration and not binding upon him and for declaration that by execution of the said sale deed, defendant no. 1 had not derived right, title and interest in the suit land. The suit was decreed by the Subordinate Judge III, Sitamarhi on 12th July, 1989. Against the said judgment and decree, the defendants filed appeal which was numbered as Title Appeal No. 35 of 1989. In the said appeal, judgment was delivered on 19.2.1990 and by the said judgment, the appeal was allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the Subordinate Judge No. Ill was set aside. Against the said judgment and decree the plaintiff- appellant has preferred this second appeal.

3. The case of the plaintiffs-appellant, in short, is that one Muneshwar Thakur was the grandfather of the plaintiffs. He had three sons, namely, Jagamath Thakur @ Nirsu Thakur, Ramchandra Thakur and Ram Sewak Thakur. Ramchandra Thakur was the father of the plaintiffs whereas Ram Sewak Thakur was the husband of defendant no. 2. After the death of Muneshwar Thakur, all the three sons inherited the property left by him. Before revisional survey operation, partition took place between the sons of Muneshwar Thakur and accordingly, they came in possession of the property as per their respective shares. The father of the plaintiffs and Ram Roop Thakur alias Guja Thakur together acquired a piece of land measuring an area of 13 1/2 katha appertaining to C.S. Plot No. 341 through a registered sale deed dated 26.10.1959 from their own earnings.

After the purchase both the persons came in possession over the land and the two brothers of the plaintiffs father had no concern with the said land. The father of the plaintiffs and Guja Thakur by mutual consent partitioned the said land between them. Guja Thakur came in possession over the piece of land from north including the trees standing thereon and the father of the plaintiffs came in possession over the land including the trees from south (described in Schedule I of the plaint). After partition the plaintiffs father gave a ridge over the land by dividing the same in two portionsone being the eastern portion and the other being the western portion. He also planted some trees over some portions of the said land and the rest land remained in cultivating possession of the plaintiffs father. The old trees standing on the land were cut by the plaintiffs father and other brothers of the plaintiffs father had no concern with those trees. Further case is that after the death of the plaintiffs father, the plaintiffs and their mother came in possession of the said land and as the mother of the plaintiffs executed a sale deed on 27.9.1986, as such by virtue of the said sale deed the plaintiffs came in exclusive possession over the entire land described in schedule I of the plaint.

Further case of the plaintiffs is that they came to know about the execution of the sale deed by their own aunt, Ram Rakshi Devi, defendant no. 2 with respect to the half portion of the aforesaid land (described in Schedule II of the plaint). According to the plaintiffs, this was done at the instance and instigation of their enemies and the sale deed dated 30.12.1986 is a fraudulent one and the same is also