M. Y. Eqbal, J.-This second appeal by the plaintiff-appellant is against the judgment of reversal.

2. Plaintiff-appellant's suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession being Title Suit No. 26 of 1986 was decreed by Munsif, Hazaribagh in terms of judgment dated 12th May, 1988. However, in appeal filed by the defendant-respondents being Title Appeal No. 68 of 1988, the 2nd Additional District Judge, Hazaribagh being the appellate Court, in terms of the judgment and decree dated 1.9.1990 reversed the finding recorded by the trial Court and allowed the appeal, thereby set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.

3. The plaintiff's case, inter alia, is that he purchased 4 decimals of land under Plot No. 239 of Khata No. 661 of village Noora, PS-Sadar, District Hazaribagh from the defendants-respondents through a registered sale-deed dated 25.8.1980 for a consideration of RS.1000/-. After purchase, the plaintiff was put in possession of the land. The plaintiff thereafter applied for mutation of the land in his name in Khas Mahal Office which was allowed and rent-receipts were issued in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit land. The plaintiff also got the land entered into register of Municipality in his name and started paying rent and taxes. Plaintiff's further case is that on 1.11.1985 when he went to Patna after locking the hut, the defendants at the instigation of the enemies of the plaintiff, occupied the hut forcibly. On return from Patna, the plaintiff alleged to have protested which finally resulted that on 21.,3.1986 the Circle Officer and B.D.O., Hazaribagh came to the tea-stall of the plaintiff and demanded to see the sale-deed, rent receipt, etc., which were produced by the plaintiff and taken away by those Officers. The plaintiff's further case is that on 1 .2.1986 when he went to the aforesaid officials to take back the papers, the Circle Officer with the help of five musclemen compelled him to sign a Sada paper of relinquishment of his claim from the land and the hut, which necessitated him for filing the instant suit.

4. The case of the defendant-respondents, on the other hand, is that the suit was bad for non-rejoinder of other cosharers of the defendants as the entire suit land is possessed by the defendants and other co-sharers jointly. The defendants denied and disputed the execution of sale-deed dated 25.8.1980 and also denied the receipt of any amount by way of consideration and putting the plaintiff in possession of the same. According to the defendants, the alleged sale deed was forged and fabricated document and was never acted upon. It was categorically stated by the defendants that they never put L.T.I. on the alleged sale deed.

5. The trial Court framed following 11 issues for consideration:

I. Is the suit maintainable in its present form?

II. Has the plaintiff got any valid cause of action for the suit?

III. Is the suit barred by law of Limitation, estoppel waiver and acquiescence?

IV. Is the suit bad for non joinder of necessary party?

V. Is the sale deed dated 25.8.80 executed by defendants?

VI. Is the sale deed dated 25.8.80 a valid, legal and binding document?

VII. Had plaintiff got possession upon the suit land by virtue of sale deed dated 25.8.80 and reconstructed hut thereon?

VIII. Has plaintiff been dispossessed on 1.1.85 from the suit land in the manner as claimed by the plff?

IX. Is the deed of relinquishment dated 1.2.86 has been voluntarily executed or it was obtained, on show of force and under threat?

X. Is the plaintiff entitled for a decree for declaration of title and recovery of possession as prayed for?

XI. To what relief or reliefs, if any plaintiff is entitled to?

6. Both the parties adduced evidence, both oral and documentary, in support of their respective cases. The plaintiff-appellant proved the sale deed, rent receipts, tax receipt, etc. The trial Court proceeded on the basis that initial onus lay on the plaintiff to prove that the suit land was pu