Pradyot Kumar Banerjee, J. - (1.) This appeal at the instance of the plaintiffs arises out of & suit for declaration of title and partition. The plaintiffs case is that the suit plot belonged to one Algunpari Bibi. On the death of Algunpari the suit property was inherited by her two sons, one daughter and husband, namely, Azad Bakta Molla, Safi Molla, Subuta Bibi and Bahar Ali. Algunpari's husband, Bahar Ali sold his share of the suit plot to HasaidunnesEa Bibi who used to possess a part of the plot. On the death of Hamlduansssa her share was possessed by her two sons, Abdul Kuddus and Abdur Rauf and daughter, Mornina Moslem. The twelve anna share of the plot was in possession of Sabura Bibi. Azad Bakta and Safi Molla, being the children of Alguupari. they were in possession of the northern part which was converted into danga by them The plaintiffs purchased the 12 anna share of Sabura Bibi, Azad Bakta and Safi Molla, being the children of the admitted owner of Algunpari Bibi. In short, according to the plaintiffs they have title to 12 annas share of the suit plot on the strength of the purchase made by them from the children of the admitted owner, Algunpari Bibi and the defendants have title to the 4 annas share of the plot on the basis of the purchase made by their vendors from Algunpari Bibi's husband, Bahar Ali. The record of rights has been challenged to be erroneous having been recorded in the name of Hamidunnessa Bibi in full in respect of the plot in question.
(2.) The defendants Nos. 1 and 2 contested the suit by filing a written statement contending. Inter alia, that Algunpari Bibi having died childness the suit plot was inherited solely by her husband, Bahar Ali. Bahar Ali sold the entire suit plot to Hamidunnessa Bibi in the year 1939. Haroidunnessa possessed the entire plot and on her death her heirs possess the entire plot. The defendants purchased the entire suit plot from the heirs of Himidunneisa and are in possession of the same and the entire suit plot has been correctly recorded in the name of two sons of Hamidunnessa. So the defence case, in shorty is that the plaintiffs have no tide and possession of the suit plot. It appears from the written statement that the defendants alto pleaded ouster if it is found that the plaintiffs are co-sharers.
(3.) The court of first instance held in favour of the plaintiffs. On appeal by the defendants, the Appellate Court however held that the defendants are in possession of the lands transferred by Bahar Ali adversely to the plaintiffs and the suit is barred by limitation.;