The plaintiffs have filed this first appeal against the judgment and decree dated 14.08.1986 passed by the learned 7th Additional Sub-ordinate Judge, Patna in T.S. No. 236 of 1982/Trial No. 11 of 1984, whereby the learned court below dismissed the plaintiffs-appellants’ suit.

2. The plaintiffs-appellants filed the aforesaid Title Suit No. 236 of 1982 for declaration of title and confirmation of possession over the Schedule-II and Schedule-III lands mentioned in the plaint. The plaintiffs further prayed for declaration that they be declared as settled raiyat in respect of the Schedule-III lands and for permanent injunction.

3. The plaintiffs claimed the aforesaid reliefs alleging that Hazari Yadav son of Mahadeo Yadav was recorded tenant, who is the ancestor of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs and their ancestor had one forth share over the Schedule-II properties and, accordingly, they are coming in possession of the properties. They were paying rent to the ex-landlord and then State. Canal Parcha and Water Tax receipts are in their name.

4. So far Schedule -III properties are concerned, according to the plaintiffs, they are the Bataidars of the defendants since last several 12 years and are cultivating the lands. Earlier, the ancestors were cultivating the lands as Bataidar. Because of the cultivation for several 12 years, the plaintiffs acquired occupancy right, as such, they have amalgamated the Schedule-III lands with the other lands of the plaintiffs. Ex-proprietor of Schedule-III lands was residing at long distance, as such, there was no arrangement for cultivation so he gave the Schedule-III lands to the plaintiffs to cultivate on Batai system 50 years ago and since then the ancestor and then the have been in cultivating possession of Schedule-III properties.

5. According to the plaintiffs, they are in possession of Schedule-II lands as settled raiyat of the same by operation of law and the other co-sharers of the recorded tenants for 3/4 share, who are also in cultivating possession of their shares. However, the defendants got a sale deed on 08.10.1964, which is collusive, inoperative, sham and without consideration. The sale deed was executed by Mahanth Sri Madhusudan Das. The sale deed is fake and is for nominal consideration. The executant of the sale deed was annoyed with the plaintiffs so executed bogus sale deed to harass the plaintiffs. The defendants, in a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C., relied upon a forged and fabricated order of delivery of possession in favour of Mahanth Goswami Bhairwa Nand Ramji, which was in connection with Execution Case No. 2205 of 1934. In fact, the plaintiffs have no knowledge about any suit or decree passed against them as no delivery of possession was affected and the document showing delivery of possession is forged and fabricated.

6. On being noticed, the defendants filed contesting written statement. Their main defence was that Mahanth of Rajipur and Masaurha Math was the proprietor of the land and Hazari Gope, ancestor of the plaintiffs, was one of their recorded tenant. Mahanth had filed the suit for recovery of due rent against said Hajari Gope which was decreed and Execution Case No. 2205 of 1934 was filed. In the said execution case, the lands mentioned in Schedule-II were auction sold. Mahanth purchased the Schedule -II lands in auction and delivery of possession was affected on 31.08.1935. Since thereafter the recorded tenant or the plaintiffs lost their all interest and possession and Mhanth, proprietor, directly came in possession of the Schedule-II lands. Ultimately after vesting of Zamindari, Mahanth’s name was entered in Register-II and Mahanth became the tenant under the State of Bihar. Likewise, Schedule-III property was also in possession of Mahanth, who became raiyat after vesting and he continued in exclusive possession of the same. On 08.10.1964, Mahanth executed a registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.1, who was Karta of the joint family where