The court affirmed that subsequent sales by a seller do not confer title if the original purchaser's rights were validly established prior.

1. This Appeal has been preferred by the Defendants under S.100 of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908 (for short ''the CPC'') questioning the propriety of the judgment and decree dated 28.03.2007 passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Baloda Bazar, in Civil Appeal No.25 - A / 2006 by which, the lower appellate Court, while reversing the judgment and decree dated 12.01.2005 passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Class - II, Baloda Bazar in Civil Suit No.3 - A / 2003, has decreed the Plaintiffs'' claim.

2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the Plaintiffs instituted a suit claiming declaration of title, injunction and also for possession by submitting inter alia that the suit property bearing Khasra No.727/1 admeasuring 0.178 hectares situated at Jamdih, Tehsil Baloda Bazar has been purchased by them under the registered deed of sale dated 18.03.1970 from one Darshan, S/o Paklu. According to the Plaint averments, the said Darshan, after alienating the suit land as such, has again sold the same to his son namely Itwari (Defendant No.2) by executing the registered deed of sale dated 31.12.1973 and who, in turn, has sold the same to Defendant No.1 - Santosh Singh by executing a registered deed of sale dated 10.03.1975. It is pleaded further that the Defendants have obtained the revenue papers in their name based upon alleged sales in the year 1982 and started threatening the Plaintiffs from cultivating the land in question. The Plaintiffs have, therefore, been constrained to file the suit in the instant nature.

3. The aforesaid claim has been contested by the Defendants by stating that the suit property was purchased by Defendant No.2 - Itwari in the year 1973 from his father Darshan and has sold the same to Defendant No.1 - Santosh Singh in the year 1975 and he has thus derived his title. It is contested further on the ground that after purchasing the property as such, they have obtained the revenue papers mutated in their names and the mutation order as passed was never questioned by the Plaintiffs and therefore, the suit as framed in not maintainable and barred by time.

4. After considering the evidence led by the parties, the trial Court has come to the conclusion that by virtue of registered deed of sale dated 18.03.1970 (Ex.P - 6), the Plaintiffs have purchased the suit property bearing Khasra No.727/1 admeasuring 0.178 hectares from one Darshan, S/o Paklu and held further that the subsequent registered deeds of sale as executed on 31.12.1973 (Ex.D - 17) and 10.03.1975 (Ex.D - 18) respectively by Darshan and his son Itwari are not genuine and would not confer any right, title or interest upon them by virtue of those sales (Ex.D - 17 and Ex.D - 18). It held further that the suit as framed is within time. It, however, found that the Plaintiffs are not in possession. As a consequence, the trial Court has non - suited the Plaintiffs as they failed to seek the further relief of possession.

5. Being aggrieved, the Defendants have preferred this Appeal. The lower appellate Court, in turn, has arrived at a conclusion that the Plaintiffs have acquired their valid right, title and interest by virtue of registered deed of sale dated 18.03.1970 (Ex.P - 6) and observed further by relying upon kishtbandi khatouni B - 1 (Ex.P - 4) that Plaintiffs are in possession over the property in question upto 1981-82 and thereafter they were not found in possession. It held further that since the suit was filed within the period of 12 years, therefore, it is within time. In consequence, decreed the Plaintiffs'' claim entitling them to obtain the possession of the suit land from the Defendants.

6. Being aggrieved, the Defendants have preferred this Appeal. Shri