Birendra Kumar, J.

This appeal, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 18.12.1993 and 05.01.1994 respectively passed by the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Bhagalpur in Title Appeal No. 04 of 1985 whereby the learned lower appellate court has reversed the judgment and decree of the learned trial court dated 27th November, 1984 passed in Title Suit No. 24 of 1980.

2. The sole plaintiff-appellant had brought Title Suit No. 24 of 1980 against the respondents for declaration of his right, title and interest, on Schedule-A land of the plaint which is fully referred in the judgments of the courts below, as well as for declaration that name of the defendants has wrongly and illegally been entered in the Khatiyan in respect of the suit land.

3. The plaintiff pleaded that Kali Rai, the father of the sole plaintiff, had purchased the suit land through registered sale deed dated 13.07.1933 (Ext.4) from one Hito Rai and thereafter he came in possession of the same. At the time of purchase, Kali Rai was separate from his father Prayag Rai. After death of the father of the plaintiff-appellant, name of the full-brother of the plaintiff-appellant, namely, Bhulo Rai was mutated in the government records vide AD Case No. 574 of the year 1949-50 as elder brother was major at that time and the plaintiff-appellant was a minor. Subsequently, the elder brother of the plaintiff died issueless and the property came in possession of the appellant. At the time of vesting of the Jamindari, the ex-landlord filed return in the name of Bhulo Rai the elder brother of the appellant. It is further asserted that there is a house standing on the suit plot and the family members of the appellant are still residing therein.6

The plaintiff contended that though the defendants have no right, title and interest in the suit property. They got their name mutated in the government records and on inquiry it revealed that Prayag Rai the grandfather of the appellant had executed a registered sale deed dated 03.09.1951 in respect of the suit land in favour of Ram Janam Tiwari vide Ext. B/2. Subsequently, Raja Ram Tiwari, son of Ram Janam Tiwari sold the same land to defendant no. 1 Lakho Devi vide Ext. B/1 and finally Lakho Devi sold the same land to defendant no. 2 (who was impleaded as party defendant during pendency of the suit) through registered sale deed dated 06.07.1979 vide Ext. B. According to the plaintiff, the entire transactions between Prayag Rai and the defendant-respondent were a showy transaction without any authority to dispose of the suit land.

4. The defendant no. 1 Lakho Devi filed her written statement and subsequently did not contest the suit for the reason that she had already sold the suit land in favour of defendant no. 2, therefore, defendant no. 2 in his written statement adopted the written statement of Lakho Devi for the apparent reason that defendant no. 2 had entered into the sues of Lakho Devi.

5. Defendant Lakho Devi in her written statement challenged the maintainability of the suit on different grounds and claimed that the suit property was purchased by Prayag Rai from joint family fund in the name of his son, namely, Kali Rai and, as such, he was competent to transfer the same by sale. Moreover, he was head and manager of the family, therefore, he had transferred the suit land vide Ext. B/2 for family necessity and to pay the family debt. The family including the appellant benefited from the transaction. According to the defendants, in the year 1951 itself, after sale of the suit land by Prayag Rai, the vendors of the defendants came in possession and after purchase by the defendants from their vendor, they came in possession, as such, the plaintiff-appellant had no possession from 1951 onwards, therefore, the defendants completed their title over suit land by adverse possession also and the suit is barred by limitation. The defendants contended that no decree