The central legal point established is that the plaintiffs must prove their title and possession over the land to have a valid cause of action for the suit.

JUDGMENT :

Heard the parties.

2. This second appeal has been preferred under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 24.08.2016 passed by the learned District Judge-I, Dhanbad in Title Appeal No. 86/2013 whereby and where under, by the said judgment of concurrence, the learned first appellate court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court being the court of Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)-V, Dhanbad in Title (P) Suit No.135 of 2005 dated 27.06.2013.

3. The case of the plaintiffs in brief is that the suit property was originally purchased by Mr. Paramjeet Marwa and Mr. Bhupendra Gerwal vide six different sale deeds. The said Parmajeet Marwa and Bhupendra Gerwal sold and transferred the suit land to Amrik Singh. Amrik Singh transferred the same to Sri Ram Swarap Singh. Ram Swarap Singh sold the land to the plaintiffs being Urmila Devi Mittal and Smt. Anjana Mittal. The plaintiff no.3 also purchased the part of the suit land from Naresh Kumar Gupta and the plaintiffs Ashok Kumar Agarwal and Anup Kumar Agarwal purchased part of the suit land from Mahendra Singh and Kartar Singh and they have been coming in peaceful possession of the suit land but suddenly in the month of February, 2005, the defendants started to disturb their possession and the plaintiffs made complaint to the Superintendent of Police and a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. was initiated but subsequently, the same was dropped and the defendants ousted the plaintiffs forcibly. It is further the case of the plaintiffs that originally there was six defendants in the suit but subsequently, purchasers was later on impleaded as defendant nos.7 to 14.

4. In their written statement, the defendants challenged the maintainability of the suit on various technical grounds and denied the claim of title by the plaintiffs. The defendants specifically pleaded that Paramjeet Marwa and Bupendra Gerwal never purchased the suit land from the recorded raiyat but they purchased from some other person who was not the recorded raiyat. Hence, by such purchase, Paramjeet Marwa and Bupendra Gerwal never got any possession over the suit land.

5. On the basis of rival pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed seven issues. It is apparent that inadvertently the trial court numbered the issue number (III) twice as the issue number (IV) also. Thus in fact the trial court has framed the 6 issues, as the issue numbers 3 and 4 are one and the same. The issues framed by the trial court are as under :-

(I) Is the suit as framed maintainable?

(II) Whether plaintiffs have right, title, interest & possession over the suit land?

(III) Whether plaintiffs have been forcefully dispossessed from the suit land by the defendants?

(IV) Whether plaintiffs have been forcefully dispossessed from the suit land by the defendants?

(V) Whether defendants have manufactured forged and fabricated as well as fictitious deeds?

(VI) Whether plaintiffs are entitled to recovery of possession over the suit land by evicting the defendants?

(VII) Whether plaintiffs are entitled to any relief or reliefs?

6. The learned trial court first took up issue nos. (II), (III), (IV) & (VI) together and after considering the evidence in the record came to the conclusion that as though in the plaint, the plaintiffs stated that Paramjeet Marwa and Bhupendra Gerwal had purchased plot nos.13 and 14 of Khata No.32 by six sale deeds but the plaintiffs could produce only one sale deed marked Ext. 6/C but that too was not executed by the recorded tenant but was executed by somebody else being Manu Mian and others who are not the recorded raiyats in favour of Paramjeet Marwa and Bhupendra Gerwal. The learned trial court considered that admittedly, the vendors are neither the tenant nor the legal representatives of the recorded tenant and the plaintiffs have failed to establish their title and went on to hold that the plaintiffs have failed to prove the authority of