IMPORTANT POINT
1. Land can also be identified by boundary.
2. An entry in record of rights neither creates nor extinguishes rights nor does an omission of entry affects the rights of parties.

Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.—The plaintiffs-appellants have preferred this appeal against t9.e order dated 8.11.2011 passed by the learned Sub-Judge-III. Khagaria in Title Suit No. 103 of 2009 by which the petition dated 13.10.2009 for grant of injunction in favour of plaintiffs has been rejected on the ground that the plaintiffs did not fulfil any ingredient for injunction.

2. The plaintiffs-appellants filed Title Suit No. 103 of 2009 for declaration of title and confirmation of possession over the suit land and in the event of forceful dispossession during the pendency of the suit possession of the plaintiffs be recovered through the process of the Court as well as for a declaration that the sale-deeds executed by the defendant 1st Set (respondent Nos. 1 to 8) for Schedule-B property of the plaint in favour of the defendant 2nd party (respondent Nos. 9 to 15) to be illegal void ab initio without jurisdiction and they do not confirm any right, title or interest in favour of defendant 2nd party. It was further prayed that the defendant be restrained permanently from making any interference with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land as well as cost and other reliefs.

3. The case of plaintiffs, in brief, is that Late Chaman Rai was common ancestor of plaintiffs and he had two sons, namely, Talebar Rai and Bhogt Rai. Bhogi Rai died issueless, whereas, Talebar Rai died leaving behind his three sons, namely, Hans Raj Rai, Meharban Rai and Dahu Rai. Bhogi Rai and Talebar Rai while alive constituted joint family and acquired 6 bigha and 18 kathas of land bearing Tauzi No. 1851 of Mauza Katghara in auction purchase vide Rent Suit No. 567/174 of 1914-15 and came in possession on 9.10.1915 by delivery of possession in execution case and perfected their right, title, interest and possession over the same which continued till date without any interruption and name of Bhogi was mutated in serista of ex-landlord and after his death heirs of Talebar Rai continued in possession. Dahu Rai, son of late Talebar Rai while alive acquired 16 bigha, 1 katha out of total areas 40 Bigha 1 Katha from Babu Giridhari Singh, son of late Babu Dayal Singh of Hussainabad (Khagaria) vide registered sale Deed No. 105 dated 22.1.1892 and after the same he perfected his right, title and interest over the same. At the time of execution of the sale-deeds there was no khata number or plot number but the land was identified by Tauzi number and boundary thereof. Since the same is before the operation of cadastral survey and the land was of Tauzi No. 1898 within the boundaries.

4. After vesting of Zamindari the land remained to be part of Tauzi Nos. 1898 and 1851 and ancestors of plaintiffs paid rent to the State of Bihar continuously and rent receipt was issued to them. Although, Jamabandi has been created in favour of the ancestor of defendants-1st party but the plaintiffs remained in possession with the above land and ancestor of defendant- 1st party never came in possession over any portion of the land. After that jamabandi created in favour of ancestor of defendant 1st set. Defendant 1st set without any title and to cause loss to the plaintiffs illegally executed seven sale-deeds in a span of 1 and 1/2 months in favour of defendant 2nd set out of the part of aforesaid land. The sale-deeds are so fabricated and the same did not derive any right, title, interest and possession in favour of 2nd party and these lands have been mentioned in Schedule B of the plaint. The suit land also includes Plot No. 993, Khata No. 191 of Mauza Katghara purchased by plaintiff No.1 on 22.6.1964 executed by Mahabir Prasad Sah and he is coming in possession. His name has been mutated vide Jamabandi No. 13 and they are also getting rent receipt after execution in favour of defendant 2nd party. The purchasers are trying hard to dispossess plaintiffs from the suit land.

5. The further case of the plaintiffs is that although jamabandi was created in favour of defendant 1st