1. The original plaintiff, Md. Ashraf Ali Ansari, since deceased and substituted, had filed this First Appeal against the Judgment and Decree dated 28.05.1982 passed by the learned IVth Addl. Subordinate Judge, Bhagalpur in Title Suit No.289 of 1976 whereby the Court below dismissed the plaintiff’s suit for declaration of title.

2. The plaintiffs filed the aforesaid suit for declaration of title over the suit property alleging that one Chethru Momin had acquired 22 bighas 7 kathas land from ex.landlord through settlement and executed a registered Kabuliyat on 03.09.1906. After settlement, he came in possession and died in the year 1921 leaving his son Abdul Gaffur, a daughter Sovia and his widow, Bibi Gunju. Thereafter, in the year 1933, a rent suit was filed by the landlord regarding the suit land wherein the landlord obtained a decree and in the execution case, the suit holding was sold which was purchased by landlord. Immediately, thereafter the heirs of Chethru Momin, i.e., his widow, Gunju and son and daughter who were the judgment debtor paid the entire dues on 5.10.1935. After payment of the dues, they continued in possession. The landlord never came in possession nor he took delivery of possession. Bibi Gunju died in the year 1942 leaving behind her son and daughter named above. Sovia also died in the year 1953-54 leaving behind her three heirs, namely, Ashraf Ansari, the plaintiff and the defendant No.16 and 17. Out of the above three heirs, only the plaintiff came in possession of the suit land and the two others relinquished their share in favour of the plaintiff. As such, the plaintiff is absolute owner.

3. The further case of the plaintiff is that at the time of vesting of Jamindari, Mahabir Singh and Mishri Chaudhary and Lal Mohammad in collusion with Amla got a false return submitted in their names with respect to the suit land. Thereafter, the descendants of Mishri Chaudhary and Mahabir Singh and others initiated 144 Cr.P.C. proceeding without making heirs of Chethru Momin a party. A compromise was entered into in mutation proceeding wherein all the successors in interest of Chethru Momin admitted to have relinquished their interest in favour of plaintiff and, therefore, plaintiff’s name was entered into in Register II in respect of 18 bighas 17 kathas 4 dhurs. The plaintiff is paying rent against the grant of rent receipts and had also sold 4 bighas to Bhola Sah and others by registered sale deed in the year 1975-76 and the purchasers are in possession. The remaining lands are in possession of the plaintiff.

4. The further case is that Narsingh Prasad Singh and others illegally executed three sale deeds on 01.01.1976 in favour of defendant-Ist-party, but the sale deeds are void and without consideration. The purchasers never came in possession. When the defendants threatened the plaintiff to dispossess, the plaintiff approached police and the police after enquiry submitted a report and then 144 Cr.P.C. proceeding was started but the Magistrate ignoring the report wrongly made the order absolute against the plaintiff by order dated 16.10.1976. The plaintiff had also acquired title by adverse possession.

5. The defendants appeared and filed contesting written statement. Besides taking the please of limitation and barred under Section 34 of Specific Relief Act and non-joinder of parties, mainly the defendants contended that in the execution case the landlord took delivery of possession of entire land measuring 22 bighas 7 kathas in the year 1933. He came in possession and then settled the entire land with three persons, namely, Mahabir Singh, Mishri Chaudhary and Lal Mohammad equally 1/3rd each. There was 144 Cr.P.C. proceeding which was converted to a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. Ultimately, the lands in question was attached and remained as such for seven years and then it was decided in favour of the defendants on 29.07.1960. The ex.landlord filed return in the name of Mahabir Prasad Singh, M