The second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenges the judgment and decree dated 24.12.2009 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, IVth, Siwan in Title Appeal No. 29 of 2003, whereby he has confirmed the judgment dated 1.5.2003 passed by the learned 9th Additional Sub-Judge, Siwan in Title Suit No. 302 of 1996 by which judgment the appellant’s suit came to be dismissed.

2. The said Title Suit No. 302 of 1996 was filed by the appellant, seeking declaration that the sale deed executed on 19.9.1996 by defendant no.2 in favour of defendant no.1 was ineffective, invalid and without consideration and that it was executed by an imposter. The plaintiff further claimed for temporary and permanent injunction against the defendants. The plaintiff is the appellant herein, the defendant nos. 1 and 2 before the Court below are the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively.

3. Briefly stated, as per the plaintiff’s case one Vishambhar Shah was the common ancestor of the appellant and defendant no.2 Singhasan Shah. Vishambhar Shah had two sons, Kidarat Shah and Mangaru Shah. Kidarat had one son Doma Shah, whereas Mangaru had two sons Chhakauri and Ram Raksha Shah. As per the case of the appellant, there was partition between the branches of Kidarat and Mangaru with respect to 19 Katha 18 dhur of land nearly 75 years ago from the date of institution of the suit and each branch got 9 katha 19 dhur. The branch of Kidarat i.e. the appellant’s branch was allotted southern portion of the land, whereas the branch of defendant no.2 was allotted the northern portion. The parties came in possession over respective land. Further case of the appellant is that nearly 20 years back the land falling in the share of the plaintiff was acquired by the Government under the Land Acquisition Act. In view of the acquisition, the plaintiff and defendant no.2 entered into an agreement that defendant no.2 would be taking entire compensation amount against acquisition of approximately half of the land arising out of acquisition of the land belonging to the appellant and plaintiff would remain in the remaining half portion of the land. His case was that defendant no.2, accordingly, received the compensation amount and he became unconcerned with the land at the spot, whereas the appellant came in possession over rest of the land remaining after acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act. The appellant asserted that he learnt on 6.10.1996 that defendant no.2 executed sale deed in favour of defendant no.1 without any consideration; where after defendant no.1 started creating disturbance to the plaintiff, which compelled the plaintiff to file the suit.

4. The defendants resisted the suit by filing a written statement on 20.8.1978. It was the common case of the defendant nos.1 and 2 that defendant was in possession over the suit land and he had title over the same and accordingly, he had right to transfer the suit property in favour of defendant no.1. They asserted that out of 19 Katha 18 dhur of the said land appertaining to Khata No.67, Plot No.470, half ( 9 Katha 19 dhurs) on the eastern side was allotted to Mangru Shah. They further claimed that Chakauri Shah the elder son of Mangaru Shah died in jointness. Defendant no.2 is the son of Ram Raksha Shah, the other son of Mangaru who, thus, inherited the share of branch of Mangaru in the said plot having area 9 katha and 19 dhurs. According to them, 3 katha 9 dhurs of land was acquired by the Government out of the said area of 9 katha 19 dhurs which defendant no.2 had inherited. He received compensation amount for acquisition of the said 3 Katha 9 dhurs of land and remained in possession over the remaining land measuring 6 katha 10 dhurs. They specifically denied the appellant’s case that entire share of the appellant was acquired by the State Government, rather some portion of the plaintiff’s land was acquired for which he received compensation from the concerned department of t