Gurusharan Sharma, J.

1. Plaintiffs are appellants, who have lost their suit in the trial Court.

2. Title Suit No. 127 of 1970 was filed for declaration of title and confirmation of possession over the suit land, described in Schedule D to the plaint and for permanent injunction restraining defendants from interfering with their possession over the same.

3. According to plaintiffs, their ancestor. Jitnarain Singh left behind two sons. Gajadhar Singh and Nepal Singh. Gajadhar Singh died leaving behind two sons, Laru Singh and Bhakta Singh. Laru Singh died issueless. Bhakta Singh had a son. Lachhmi Singh. Plaintiffs 1 to 3 were sons of Lachhmi Singh and plaintiff No. 4 was his widow. Nepal Singh had a son Shibu Singh. Shamu Singh was son of Shibu Singh, who left behind two sons, Chepa @ Chamtu Singh and Etwari Singh. Chamtu Singh died issueless in 1931. Etwari Singh also died unmarried in 1935. After death of Etwari Singh, interest of both sons of Shamu Singh devolved upon Lachhmi Singh, who was the only surviving male member amongst the descendants of Jitnarain Singh. He sold some lands to Budhu Mahto and Beni Mahto and died in the year 1935. All of a sudden on 3.7.1970, defendant No. 1 along with his men tried to erect boundary wall in portion of Schedule D lands on the ground that he had purchased the same from defendant No. 2, to which the plaintiffs protested.

4. On enquiry plaintiffs came to know that a woman named Dulali Debya claiming herself to be widow of Etwari Singh had executed a sale deed on 5.12.1945 in favour of defendant No. 2 in respect of lands of Khata No. 40, measuring 5.72 acres situated in Mauza Susunlewa, which stood recorded in the name of Shamu Singh.

5. Plaintiffs further case was that Etwari Singh had no widow named Dulali Debya and he had died unmarried. The alleged sale deed executed by an imposter, Dulali Debya in favour of Krishna Rani Devi, defendant No. 2 was fraudulent, collusive and without consideration.

6. Plaintiffs further case was that in Village Pandra there was a lady named; Dulali Debya. Hence she was made defendant No. 3 in the suit. She filed written statement and subsequently died during pendency of the suit. She had absolutely no concern with village Susunlewa and she never resided there or possessed any portion of the suit land and had no right to execute sale deed in respect thereof. Secondly, by virtue of sale deed dated 25.6.1969 executed by defendant No. 2, Niberan Chandra Deogharia, defendant No. 1 also did not acquire any right, title and interest over any portion of the suit land, described in Schedule D to the plaint nor came in possession thereof.

7. Defendants contested the suit. They denied geneological table given in Schedule A to the plaint. It was claimed that after the death of Chamtu Singh. Etwari Singh came in possession of the entire properties of Shamu Singh. Etwari Singh died in the year 1943 and not in 1935. It was absolutely false that Etwari died unmarried. In fact he died in the year 1943, leaving behind his widow, Dulali Debya, as his sole hair, who sold lands of Khata No. 40 in the year 1945 to defendant No. 2, whose name was mutated in landlords sirista and she was in possession of the same at the time of vesting of zomindari in the State and so a Jamabandi was opened in Register II, the tenants ledger maintained by State, in her name. She transferred the suit land to defendant No. 1 in the year 1969. Dulali Debya, defendant No. 3 was widow of Etwari Singh and was not an imposter as alleged by the plaintiffs.

8. Plaintiffs were not the heirs of Chamtu and Etwari. Shamu Singh was separate from Lachhmi Singh.

9. Trial Court dismissed the suit holding that Dulali Debya was legally married wife of Etwari Singh and the sale deed executed by her in respect of suit land was genuine, legal and for consideration. Defendants, therefore, acquired title over the suit land by virtue of sale deeds executed in their favour.

10. In order to prove that defendant No. 3. Dul