Khatim Reza, J. – Heard the parties.

2. These four appeals arise out of Title Suit No. 58 of 1985 filed by the plaintiff for declaration of title and non-title of defendant/Executive Officer, Notified Area Committee, Rajgir, Nalanda and further for a relief for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interferring with the possession of the plaintiff, which has been fully described in Schedule, bearing Tauzi No. 12569, Khata No. 333, Plot No. 5205, ad measuring an area of 1 acre 98 decimals, situated at Rajgir in the District of Nalanda. Subsequently, the Chairman, Notified Area Committee represented through S.D.O., Biharsharif, Rajgir, Nalanda was added as defendant no. 2 and Md. Shakil Hassan was added as defendant no. 3, as he had filed intervention petition on 05.03.1992 for adding him as party defendant. The said intervention petition was allowed vide order dated 09.04.1992, holding the itnervenor to be necessary party, as his interest is directly involved in the suit property.

3. The Second Appeal bearing S.A. No. 122 of 2002 has been filed by the plaintiff/ appellant against the Judgment and decree dated 20.03.2002, passed in T.A. No. 23 of 1993 (filed by defendant no.1), by the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Biharsahrit, Nalanda, reversing (partly) the Judgment and decree dated 17.03.1993, passed in T.S. No. 58 of 1985 by the learned Sub-Judge-I, Biharsharif, Nalanda.

4. The Second Appeal bearing S.A. No. 123 of 2002 has been filed by the plaintiff/appellant against the Judgment and decree dated 20.03.2002, in T.A. No. 25 of 1993 (filed by intervenor- defendant no.3), reversing (partly) the judgment and decree dated 17.03.1993, passed in T.S. No. 58 of 1985 by the learned Sub-Judge-I, Biharsharif, Nalanda.

5. The Second Appeal bearing S.A. No. 139 of 2002 has been filed by the defendant no. 1/appellant against the judgment and decree dated 20.03.2002, passed in T.A. No. 25 of 1993 (filed by intervenor- defendant no.3) by the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Nalanda at Biharsharif, affirming the findings against the appellant passed in T.S. No. 58 of 1985 by the learned Sub-Judge-I, Biharsharif, Nalanda on 17.03.1993.

6. The Second Appeal bearing S.A. No. 140 of 2022 has been filed by the defendant no. 1/appellant against the judgment and decree dated 20.03.2002, passed in T.A. No. 23 of 1993 (filed by defendant no.1) by the 1st Additional District Judge, Nalanda at Biharsharif, affirming the finding of the learned Trial Court, passed in judgment and decree dated 17.03.1993 by the learned Sub-Judge-I, Biharsharif, Nalanda.

7. The Second Appeal No. 122 of 2002 and Second Appeal No. 123 of 2002 were heard together and on 03.02.2010 the following substantial question of law was formulated while admitting the appeals: –

(i) Whether the notice under Section 377 of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act was at all essential when the Notified Area Committee and Municipality concern fully contested the suit as parties and never pressed their objections before the learned Trial Court on this point?

8. In Second Appeal No. 123 of 2002, no separate substantial question of law was framed. However, the time of hearing of S.A. No. 123 of 2002, the appellant suggested additional substantial question of law, which are as follows: –

(i) Whether Appellate Court erred in law in holding that plaintiff acquired title over only 98 decimals of C.S. Plot No. 5205 by relying upon Exhibit A-1, which is not a document of sale in the eye of law.

(ii) Whether learned Lower Court erred in law in declaring title of Intervenor over 1 acre of part of the suit land without any counter-claim for making declaration of his title over the same land.

9. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit property ad measuring 1 acre 98 decimals was purchased by Syed Shah Mujtaba Hassan from the ex-land lord namely Nawab Manzoor Khan and Bibi Khurshidi Begum, by registered sale deed dated 17.08.1944 (Exhibit 1-B) and the purchaser came in possession and pa