JUDGMENT :

1. Heard the counsel for the appellants and the respondents.

2. This appeal has been filed by the appellants under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, challenging the judgment passed by the First Additional District Judge, Hazaribagh dated 17th August, 1989 in Title Appeal No.63 of 1972, by which the appeal preferred by these appellants was dismissed. The appellants before the First Appellate Court were the defendants in the Trial Court in the suit, which was filed by the respondents herein as the plaintiffs. The Title Suit was decreed vide judgment dated 1st June, 1972 in Title Suit No.2032 of 1968 / 91 of 1990.

3. The plaintiffs had filed a title suit and prayed for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the possession of the Schedule ‘A’ land and also for a declaration of plaintiffs’ title, possession and its confirmation.

4. As per the case of the plaintiffs, one Fagu Mistri had four sons, namely, Raghu, Bandhu, Chintaman and Bechu. The lands of Khata No.4 of Village Kolghatti, Khata No.11 of Village Nura and Khata No.29 of Village Okni, within Sadar Police Station, Hazaribagh were recorded in the name of Chaman, Budhan and Dubar, who were sons of Raghu Mistri – one share, Bandhu one share, Matan one share, and Most. Bilia one share. Nehal and Puni, who are the sons of Chaman are the plaintiffs in the case. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the lands were cultivated by the parties, separately after partition also. The plaintiffs claim that when Schedule ‘A’ property of the plaint was in possession of Dubar, who was in need of urgent money for construction of the house, had approached the plaintiff for some money in lieu of selling off the lands in Schedule ‘A’. Plaintiff agreed to purchase Schedule ‘A’ land from Dubar Mistri for a cash consideration of Rs.800/-. An agreement for sale was executed by the said Dubar Mistri in respect of Schedule ‘A’ land on 15.03.1940 and the plaintiffs were put in possession of the said lands on the same date. It is the case of the plaintiffs that by remaining in peaceful possession openly and adversely to the complete ouster of all the defendants, they have perfected their title and they cannot be disturbed. Dubar Mistri died within four months after execution of the agreement and, thus, the sale deed was not executed nor registered, but, the plaintiffs, in garb of the agreement remained in possession till the date of filing of the suit. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the defendants did not have any right, title or possession over the property, but, at the instance of some mischief mongers and enemies, started giving threats to the plaintiffs. It is alleged that they cut away paddy grown on the lands and also tried to remove the signs of separation of the portion purchased by the plaintiffs from the remaining area of the plots. It is pleaded that threats were given on 20.08.1968, which were renewed on 21.09.1968. Thus, the plaintiff was forced to file the suit for a declaration of right, title and interest and confirmation of possession and also for injuncting the defendants.

5. The suit was initially filed against Most. Akli, the widow of Dubar Mistri, but, later on 8 defendants were added by virtue of an amendment dated 02.06.1970. The suit was contested only by Most. Akli and defendant No.4 Md. Rafique and against the others, the suit proceeded exparte.

6. Both these two respondents filed separate written statements. Most. Akli pleaded that after the death of Dubar, she became owner of Schedule ‘A’ land and she remained in possession without any interruption for more than 30 years and thus, she perfected her title for remaining in possession for more than 12 years. The genealogical table is admitted. The records of right and entries are also admitted. It is her case that rent was not split up. It was recorded under one khata with different and distinct kabjewari. So far as Khata No.29 is concerned, all the four brothers had equal sh