JUDGMENT :

1. The appellants are the plaintiffs who have preferred the instant appeal against the judgment of affirmance passed by learned 4th Additional District Judge, Godda, in Title Appeal No. 8 of 2004.

2. The parties shall be referred by the placement in the suit and shall include their legal representative substituted from time to time.

3. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title and possession over the suit property fully detailed in Schedule A of the plaint comprising an area 2 katha and 4 Dhurs of land. Further relief has been prayed for declaration of Sale Deed No. 1156/1975 to be forged and fabricated and that it is not with respect to the suit land (sub- plot no 6/A) and for confirmation of possession and in the alternative recovery of possession if found dispossessed.

4. The case of the plaintiffs/appellants is that suit land is contiguous West of plaintiff No.1’s own land (Plot No. 6-B), out of which 2 kathas 4 dhurs was shown as sub-plot no.6-A in the sketch map attached with the plaint which Amar Nath Mishra agreed to sell to the plaintiff for a total consideration of Rs 15000/- out of which Rs.2500/- was paid as earnest money on 21.05.1988 as part of the sale price. The plaintiff was put in possession of the same by executing jarbeyana and he agreed to execute the sale deed in his favour after receiving the balance amount of Rs.12,500/-. It is also stated that the balance amount of Rs.12500/- was paid to Amarnath Mishra on 25.02.1989. The plaintiffs pleads that Defendant No. 1 got a forged deed of sale being no. 1156 in the year 1975 purported to be executed by Basudeo Narain Verma in her favour and on its basis defendant nos. 1 and 2 came in possession over sub-plot 6/E . It is contended that the boundary of the deed does not agree with the sale deed bearing no. 1203 dated 14.02.1975 executed by the same vendor in favour of Prayag Dutt Thakur.

5. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 amalgamated Plot no.6/ D of Moti Lal Jha with their claimed plot no. 6/E and surrounded both the plots with a brick kiln boundary wall.

6. In order to grab the land, a proceeding under section 145 of Cr.P.C was initiated on 31.05.1991 vide Cr. Misc. Case No.534 of 1991 in the Court of S.D.J.M., Godda by defendant no. 1 with respect to 1 Katha and 19 Dhurs within Plot No. 6/A. In the proceeding, the possession of defendant no. 1 was declared against which Criminal Revision was preferred in the Court of Session Judge, Godda which was allowed and the case was remanded to the Court of S.D.J.M, Godda for fresh consideration. After remand, the Court of S.D.J.M again declared the possession of defendant no. 1. This order was set aside by the Session Judge, Godda in revision. Vide order dated 04.06.1997, Patna High Court under section 482 Cr.P.C restored the order passed by the S.D.J.M., Godda. Thereafter, the suit has been filed.

7. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 filed their joint written statement. It is contended that the suit plot measures 1 katha 19 dhur and not 2 katha 4 dhurs. The map as enclosed with the plaint has been disputed. Motilal Jha had purchased three kathas of plot 6/D from Bashu Dev Narayan Verma but not from Amar Nath Mishra. Averment in the plaint regarding power of receiver Amarnath Mishra to transfer portion of plot no.6/A measuring 2 kathas 4 dhur has been disputed and denied. The suit land as claimed by the plaintiff was not available in Plot No. 6/A. In this plot, 1 kathas 19 dhurs had already been sold to the defendants by sale deed no.1156 of 1975 and was not available for resale. Plaintiff no.1 never came in possession over the suit land and the said Amarnath Mishra never executed any deed or receipt dated 21.05.1988.

8. It has been further pleaded by the plaintiff that contrary to the case of the plaintiff, deed No.1156 of 1976 was for Plot No.6/E rather it was of Plot No.6/A. In the proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C., the possession of the defendant was declared after spot verification. Defendant no.1 has got a clinic, ca