N.N. Tiwari, J.—This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 11.4.2008 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge-I, Rajmahal in TA No.4 of 2006 affirming and upholding the judgment and decree dated 31.1.2006 passed by the learned Sub-Judge-III, Rajmahal in TS No. 19 of 1989. The appellant was the plaintiff in the said TS No. 19 of 1989. He had filed the said suit for declaration of his right, title and for confirmation of possession over the suit land appertaining to J.B. No. 300. plot No. 844. Area-1 bigha, 9 kathas, 13 dhurs of village Lakhipur. PS Rajmahal. Dist. Sahebganj.

2. According to the plaintiff the said land was recorded in the name of his father Kalu Sheikh. the plaintiff has been in possession of the suit land till the date of institution of the suit and he has been paying rent in respect of the land. continuously. The defendant No. 1 Tasiruddin Sheikh has absolutely no right, title and interest over the same. His claim of having purchased the same long back on 10.6.1939 from Neyamat Sheikh by an unregistered sale-deed is wholly false and baseless. The claim of defendant Nos. 2 and 3 of having purchased the said land from defendant No. 1 by virtue of registered sale-deed of 1987 is wholly false and baseless. The said defendants maliciously raised the dispute which led to a proceeding under Section 144. Cr.PC way back in the year 1988. But the proceeding was dropped. However, the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 succeeded in getting their names mutated in the Circle Office. Rajmahal. The plaintiff had preferred appeal before the SDO against the mutation order, but his appeal was dismissed by the order dated 22.2.1989. The plaintiff ultimately instituted the instant suit for the aforesaid relief.

3. The defendants appeared and contested the suit. It was inter alia stated that the father of defendant Nos. 2 and 3 i.e. defendant No.1 had purchased the land long back in the year 1939 and since thereafter. the land was in their possession. However, the defendant No. 1 transferred the said land in favour of the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 by way of registered sale-deed in the year 1987 and put the said defendants in possession. The said defendants have been in. continuous peaceful possession of the suit land since after their purchase. Their names were mutated in the CO office and they have been paying rent continuously and getting receipt thereof. The defendants have perfect and valid right, title and the plaintiff has absolutely got no right, title and interest over the suit land. The defendants also raised several objection against the maintainability of the suit.

4. Learned trial Court on the basis of the said pleadings framed several issues.

5. Both the parties led their evidences, oral and documentary.

6. Learned trial Court appraised the evidences, discussed the facts and materials on the record and recorded its finding that the plaintiff has got no-right, title and interest over the suit land. He answered almost all the important issues against the plaintiff and dismissed the suit.

7. The plaintiff then filed appeal against the said judgment and decree in the Court of the District Judge. Sahebganj/Rajmahal being TA No.4 of 2006.

8. The said appeal was finally heard and decided by the Additional District Judge-I, Rajmahal. Learned lower appellate Court after hearing the parties. thoroughly gone into the facts and evidences on record and after a detailed discussion and appreciation of the facts and evidences held that the plaintiff could not be able to prove the acquisition of title over the said land, whereas the defendants established their right, title and continuous exclusive pos- session by adducing cogent evidence. Learned lower appellate Court concurred with the finding of fact and recorded by learned trial Court and dismissed the appeal.

9. In this second appeal the said impugned judgment has been assailed mainly on the ground that the learned Courts below have committed serious errors in not