S.K. KATRIAR, J.

The plaintiffs are the appellants against a judgment of reversal. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30.1.1997, and the consequential decree, passed by learned Additional District Judge V, Aurangabad, in Title Appeal Nos. 33 of 1989/9 of 1992/26 of 1996 (Ram Silas Yadav vs. Ram Nandan Prasad & another), whereby he has set aside the 'judgment dated 11.4.1989, and the decree dated 21.4.1989, passed by learned Additional Munsif III, Aurangabad, in Title Suit No. 48 of 1983/57 of 1989 (Ram Nandan Prasad & another vs. Ram Bilas Yadav). The learned Munsif had decreed the suit, declared the title and possession of the plaintiffs, and permanently injuncted the defendant from going upon the disputed properties. Hence the plaintiffs appeal. We shall go by the description of the parties in the trial court.

2. This suit was originally brought against the sole defendant in respect of 14 acres of land bearing plot no. 45, khata no. 41, of village Teterya, P.S. Nabinagar, district Aurangabad. The suit was dismissed vide judgment dated 25.6.84, by the learned Munsif, Aurangabad. The plaintiffs preferred Title Appeal No. 40/84 in the court of District Judge, Aurangabad. That appeal was allowed by judgment dated 30.5.88, the judgment and the decree of the trial court was set aside, and the matter was remitted back with the direction to decide the suit afresh according to law. As per statement in para 9 of the written statement, the defendant's interest was limited to 2.37 1/2 acre of the suit land, and others had interest in the remaining lands. The matter was, therefore, remitted back to the trial court, inter alia, with the direction to imp-lead such other persons as parties in the suit. However, the plaintiffs caused an amendment of the plaint and confined their relief to the said 2.37 1/2 acres claimed by the defendant, and reduced the suit land from 14 acres to 2.37 1/2 acres. The parties were given fresh opportunity to adduce evidence, who availed of the same, and brought fresh evidence on record. The trial court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs. The defendant appealed.

3. Briefly speaking the case of the plaintiffs is that the suit land was part of the zamindary of Maharaj Captain Gopal Sharan Narain Singh, and he was after on his death succeeded by Kumar Fateh Narain Singh a son of Late Maharaj. The suit plot was Gairmajurua Malik land and belonged to, and was in possession of, Kumar Fateh Narain Singh. He sold 14 acres of land bearing plot no. 45, khata no. 41, to Kailashpati Bairagi on 1.8.70 by registered sale deed, and the purchaser came in possession. On 31.7.71, the said Kailashpati Bairagi sold the entire land to the plaintiffs by two registered deeds of absolute sale. They came in possession of the lands by virtue of these sale deeds, and they have been in cultivating possession of the same since they purchased on 31.7.71. The plaintiffs applied for mutation. The revenue authorities found the plaintiffs in possession and accordingly submitted their report recommending mutation in favour of Kailash Bairagi, which was done in the year 1978, and the plaintiffs have been paying rent and getting rent receipts.

4. According to the further case of the plaintiffs, they learnt that the defendant had brought into existence sale deeds dt.13.8.70 through which he purported to have purchased 2.37 1/2 acres of land out of plot no. 45. The sale deeds of the plaintiffs were executed and acted upon prior to 13.8.70. The sale deeds dt.13.8.70 (correct date 18.8.70, but wrongly typed as 13.8.70 in the plaint) executed in favour of the defendant are not genuine and valid documents and have been fabricated. The vendor (Kumar Fateh Narain Singh) having already alienated his right, title, and interest including possession in favour of the vendor of the plaintiffs (Kailashpati Bairagi) had got no saleable interest or right left with him in survey plot no. 45, and the subsequent sale deeds executed by him