( 1. ) THE facts lie in a narrow compass but the question of law emerging therefrom does have substantiality.

( 2. ) THE contending parties both claim under one Bonda who was admittedly the owner of the suit property at one point of time. The plaintiff-appellant claimed to have acquired title from Bonda under a registered deed of sale dated 18-11-1961 and sued the defendants for possession alleging the possession of the defendants to be unauthorised. The defendants Nos. 11 and 12 who are the principal contestants relied on an unregistered deed of sale dated 3-7-1950 entitled as an agreement executed by bonda in their favour whereby Bonda had alienated the land to these defendants, possession was delivered thereunder and the consideration too was paid by them to bonda They submitted that they having been in possession continuously since 3-7-1950 under the said deed claiming to be the owners of the land, firstly their possession was protected by the doctrine of part performance under Section 53-A of Transfer of property Act and in the alternative they had also perfected their title by adverse possession which would render the suit of the plaintiff filed on 28-6-1972 not main