The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to establish title through evidence, including settlement, oral and documentary evidence, and possession, and the admissibility of documents under the Indian Registration Act and the Indian Evidence Act.

JUDGMENT

Mookerjee, J. - The subject-matter of the litigation, which has culminated in this appeal, is tenure created on the 25th February, 1881, by the proprietor of Chuck Ula Kalijuga appertaining to Tauzi No. 57 of the Collectorate of Khulna. The proprietary interest, which, at that time, was vested in Suryya Kanta Rai Chaudhuri, has since been transferred to Jogendra Chandra Ghosh and others. The case for the plaintiff is that the tenure was granted to one Idu Sana; while the case for the defendants is that the grant was made in favour of his son Budhai Sana. The relationship of the parties will appear from the following genealogical table:

                           Idu Sana                           d. 1884                                |       __________________________________________________       |                        |                        |    Niamat                    Chand                     Budhai    d. 1900                   d. 1892       |                          |____________________              ||      |           |              |Siam  Hemala     Samela           |Def.5 Def.8       Def.9.          |                                  |                       ________________________________________                       |                 |          |          |                     Abdul             Ektar       Amela      Khutti                     Def. 6            Def. 7      Def. 10    Def. 11

2. Idu Sana left three sons, Niamat, Chand and Budhai, who inherited the properties left by him in equal shares. Niamat left a son (Def. No. 5) and two daughters (Defs. Nos. 8 and 9). Chand left two sons (Defs. Nos. 6 and 7) and two daughters (Defs. 10 and 11). The daughters are alleged to have relinquished their interests in favour of their respective brothers, and it may be taken for the purposes of this litigation that whatever estate was left by Idu Sana passed to his grandsons alone. On the 14th November, 1906, Budhai sold the entire tenure to the first defendant for a sum of Rs. 1,600, on the assumption that his nephews had no interest therein. On the 26th January, 1917, the fifth, sixth and seventh defendants conveyed a two-thirds share of the tenure to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 3,000, on the assumption that it was the joint property of their respective fathers and of their uncle. On the 6fch November, 1918, the plaintiff instituted the present suit for recovery of joint possession on declaration of title by purchase, for partition, and for incidental reliefs. The plaintiff joined with the prayer for possession, an alternative prayer for recovery of the purchase-money from his vendors, should the Court ultimately hold against him on the question of title. The brothers and sisters of the first defendant were brought on the record as defendants (Defs. Nos. 2 - 4 and 12 - 15) in order that they might have an opportunity to oppose the claim and might be bound by any decree in favour of the plaintiff. The claim was, however, contested by the first defendant alone, who disputed the title and possession of the plaintiff as well as of his vendors. The principal issues framed on the pleadings were as follows:

(1) Did Idu Sana or his son Budhai Sana take settlement of the land in suit?

(2) Is the claim barred by limitation?

(3) Is the conveyance of the plaintiff a bona fide document for consideration?

3. The Subordinate Judge has dismissed the suit and has disallowed the claim for possession as well as the alternative claim for refund of the consideration money. On the present appeal, the conclusions of the Subordinate Judge have been assailed upon every point.

4. We have to consider in the first place the fundamental question in the suit, namely, whether the settlement of the disputed land was taken by Idu Sana or by his son Budhai Sana. The oral testimony of the persons said to have been present at the time of the actual settlement has been accurately analysed by the Subordinate Judge, and he has held that the evid