JUDGMENT :

Heard the parties.

2. This second appeal has been preferred under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree of concurrence dated 3.02.2007 passed by the Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVII, Ranchi in Title Appeal No.80 of 1987 by which the learned first appellate court has dismissed the suit of the plaintiffappellant and held that the judgment and decree by which the Title Suit No.70 of 1975 passed by the trial court being the court of Additional Munsif, Ranchi requires no interference.

3. The case of the plaintiff-appellant in brief is that the suit land has been recorded in the name of Fauda Mahato and Karinath Mahato and consequent upon the partition between them, the suit plot fell in the share of Fauda Mahato. There was a dispute between Fauda Mahato on the one hand and Bimal Das Gupta and Mathura Singh Ramnath Singh on the other hand which led Fauda Mahato to file Title Suit No.92 of 1967 in the court of Sub-ordinate Judge, Ranchi. The said Title Suit No.92 of 1967 was compromised and by virtue of the said compromise entered into between the parties in Title Suit No.92 of 1967, Bimal Das Gupta and Mathur Singh Ramnath Singh acquired title of the suit land. The plaintiff purchased the suit land from Shri Bimal Das Gupta and Shri Mathur Singh Ramnath Singh vide registered sale deed dated 25.05.1968 for a consideration of Rs.4,000/- and later on 29.12.1973 as the defendants interfered with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land, the plaintiff lodged a report with Kanke Police station on the basis of which a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. was drawn up vide Miscellaneous Case No.1372 of 1973 and the said proceeding was converted into proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and the magistrate erroneously ordered on 28.02.1974 declaring the possession of the defendant over the suit plot. The plaintiff filed the suit with prayer for declaring title over the suit land, decree for recovery and delivery of possession through court by appointment of pleader commissioner, cost of the suit and other reliefs.

4. The defendants-respondents in their written statement besides the technical ground has inter alia pleaded that Fauda Mahato by an agreement of sale dated 17.12.1973 contracted to sell to the defendant 35 ½ decimals of land including the suit land of 18 decimals for a consideration of Rs.5,000/- out of which Rs.4,000/- was paid by him as earnest money on the date of agreement for sale and the defendant no.1 was in possession of the land and in terms of the said agreement of sale, Fauda Mahato later on sold inter alia the suit land vide registered sale deed dated 05.01.1974 to the defendants and the name of the defendants were duly mutated in the sherista of the landlord/State of Bihar in respect of 35 ½ decimals of land including the suit land. The defendants further pleaded that the Title Suit No.92 of 1967 was a collusive suit between Fauda Mahato on the one hand and Bimal Das Gupta and Mathura Singh Ramnath Singh on the other hand hence no title passed or could pass to Bimal Das Gupta and Mathura Singh Ramnath Singh by virtue of said compromise in Title Suit No.92/67. It was also pleaded that the description of the suit land is a vague one. It is next pleaded by the defendants that Fauda Mahato appeared as a witness in Case No. M 1372 of 1972 under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and filed an affidavit to the effect that he never sold any land to Bimal Das Gupta and Mathura Singh Ramnath Singh and as such, the alleged compromise in that suit is obviously a cooked up story. The defendants further pleaded that a petition before the magistrate calling upon the plaintiff to file the compromise petition forming part of the decree in the said Title Suit No.92 of 1967 was filed but the plaintiff did not produce the said decree before the magistrate and even though the defendants filed a petition for the copy of the decree and compromise petition in the said Title Suit No.92 of 1967 but the sa