A registered deed of grant of land permanently on Parjawat tenure, though not executed by the lessee, is valid and confers title on the transferee.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the first defendant from a decree of injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the use and possession of the land in suit by the plaintiff as a permanent lessee thereof. The two plots of land Nos. 3 and 4 were granted on Parjawat tenure to Bankim chandra Ghosh and Nagendra Nath Paul under two separate registered deeds dated the 19th July, 1934 and 17th August, 1934 respectively, by one Krishna Mohan Shah. The plaintiff claims to be a transferee of the Parjawat rights in the two plots of land from the heirs of Bankim Chandra ghosh and Narendra Nath Paul under two separate deeds of sale dated the 14th July, 1958. The plaintiff has described the instruments dated the 19th July, 1934 and 17th August, 1934 executed by Krishna Mohan Shah in favour of Bankim, Chandra Ghosh and Narendra Nath Paul as permanent leases, and the status acquired by them thereunder to be that of a permanent lessee. The defendants Nos. 1 and 3 were brothers and the second defendant is the first defendants wife. The defendants Nos. 1 and 3 had filed separate written statement, but only defendant No. 1 appears to have contested the suit.

( 2 ) THE plaintiffs case was that the defendants had unlawfully obstructed him in raising construction on the land after he had purchased the same in July, 1958, the date of the accrual of the cause of action given by the plaintiff being the 4th December, 1958 and the suit having been filed on the 6th December, 1958. The defence was that the leases were invalid, inasmuch as krishna Mohan Shah all alone had no right to execute the leases, and that the suit was barred by limitation, inasmuch as the plaintiff or his predecessor-in-interest before him never had any possession over the land.

( 3 ) IT appears that the plaintiff had, on an application made on the 13th January, 1960 amended the plaint by claiming in the alternative the relief of possession if he was found to be out of possession.

( 4 ) THE following were the issues on which the parties went to trial. "1. Whether plaintiff is the permanent lessee of the plots in suit?" 2. To what relief if any is the plaintiff entitled? 3. Is the suit barred by Articles 142 and 144 of the Limitation Act?"

( 5 ) THE trial court found that Krishna Mohan Shah had sold his rights in the land to Balbhadra das and in the year 1956, the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 purchased the same from Balbhadra Das vide Exts. 8 and 9 and held that the plots of land belonged exclusively to Krishna Mohan Shah and he alone was, as such entitled to transfer the same. But the trial court also found that the two leases in favour of Bankim Chandra Ghosh and Narendra Nath Paul, under which the plaintiff claimed title to the land, were signed only by the lessor and not by the lessees and were, therefore, invalid and ineffective in law and the plaintiff had no title to the land. On issue No. 3, the finding of the trial court was that although the plaintiff admitted in his statement on oath (made on 9th February, 1961) that he was not in possession over the land for the last two years, that did not mean that the plaintiff or his predecessor-in-interest were not in possession before the said period of two years and that, therefore, the suit could not be said to be barred by Articles 142 and 144 of the Limitation Act. However, in view of its finding on issue No. 1, the trial court dismissed the suit with costs. On appeal by the plaintiff in the District Court, he was allowed to amend the plaint, whereby the plea of having perfected title over the land by adverse possession "either as owner or as lessees" was added. The lower appellate court confirmed the trial courts finding that Krishna Mohan Shah was the sole proprietor of the land and had the right to transfer it himself alone. Further, according to the lower appellate court, the first defendant had no right to contest the suit on the ground that the leases in favour of the plaintiff are defective and that he