JUDGMENT :

S.N. Pathak, J.

Heard the parties.

2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 29.09.2018 (decree sealed and signed on 12.10.2018), passed by learned District Judge-I, Rajmahal in Title Appeal No. 16 of 2017, confirming the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2017 (decree sealed and signed on 10.07.2017), passed by learned Trial Court in Original Suit No. 13 of 1986.

3. The case of the plaintiff before the learned Trial Court was that the original plaintiff, late Gour Narayan filed Title Suit No. 13 of 1986 seeking reliefs for grant of decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to vacate the suit property. The plaintiff had also sought for grant of permanent injunction for restraining the defendants/ appellants from dispossessing the plaintiffs/ respondents from the suit property. It had been further pleaded that one Dharm Narayan Das (father of the original plaintiff i.e. Gour Narayan) was a renowned Lawyer and had acquired various landed properties out of his income from legal profession and the present suit property was also a part of his self-acquired properties. The original plaintiff had elaborated his case by making specific pleading that late Dharm Narayan Das had executed a registered “Deed of Family Settlement” on 01.12.1950 (Ext. 4) and through the said settlement deed he allotted his self-acquired properties to his sons, wife as well as made provision for charitable purposes. In the aforementioned family settlement, Schedule-“Ch” was allotted to Shanti Bala Dasi (wife of late Dharm Narayan Das and mother of the original plaintiff, late Gaur Narayan). Thereafter, the said Shanti Bala Dasi, out of her love and affection, voluntarily executed the Gift Deed on 26.07.1982 (Ext. 7) in favour of her youngest son namely, late Gour Narayan, the original plaintiff, who accepted the same. Subsequently, on the basis of the aforesaid Gift Deed, the original plaintiff got the said property mutated in his name started paying the rent to the State of Bihar till his death and thereafter, the present plaintiffs/ respondents are paying rent and getting the rent receipts in lieu thereof. In view of the aforesaid facts, it is crystal clear that the that plaintiffs/ respondents are deriving their title over the suit property, on the basis of a registered Gift Deed duly executed by the title holder, which is a registered instrument and has not been challenged by the defendants/ respondents till date. In this background, since the instrument through which the plaintiffs are deriving their title has not been challenged, their title was not clouded as such having perfect right, title and possession over the suit property.

4. On the other hand, by filing written statements, the defendants/ appellants had contested the case before the learned Trial Court. It had been pleaded by the defendants/ appellants that the suit property was a joint family property acquired under the Kartaship of common ancestor, late Dharm Narayan Das. It had further been pleaded that Family Settlement Deed dated 01.12.1950 was not valid and operative and it was a sham document and hence, the donor, Shanti Bala Dasi, had no right to execute the Deed of Gift dated 26.07.1982, in favour of the original plaintiff, late Gour Narayan. The original defendant No. 1 had also made a case of adverse possession for claiming title over the suit property and thus, he had taken a contradicting stand in the way inasmuch as at one hand, he had pleaded that this belongs to the joint family and on the other hand, he had taken plea of acquiring the title by way of adverse possession. The defendants in para-18 of their 2nd written statements had made candid admission that they acquired knowledge about existence of registered Deed of Gift (Ext. 7) executed by Shanti Bala Dasi in favour of late Gour Narayan with respect to the suit property, when they received the copy of the plaint.

5. On the basis of rival pleadings of the parties, learned Trial C