SHARMA, J. - (1.) PLAINTIFFS are appellants. Plaintiffs' ancestor Sk. Rustam held and possessed Plot Nos. 530, 531 and 532 of Khata No. 236 situate at Jharia town. He left behind three sons, Kamruddin, Nizamuddin and Qurban and a daughter Madina. Md. Safi, plaintiff no. 2, was one of the sons of Nizamuddin. He claimed to have purchased share of late Kamruddin in Plot No. 532 by registered sale deed dated 28.4.1959. 2. According to plail1tiffs, some time in August, 1968, defendants forcibly demolished constructions standing on the aforesaid plots of land and constructed a road on the northern portion of Plot No. 531 from east to west and a wall on Plot Nos. 531 and 532 and thereby encroached about 10 decimals land, described in Schedule 'B' to the plaint and a sketch map showing the encroached portion in red colour was also attached with the plaint. 3. Plaintiffs, therefore, filed Title Suit No. 29 of 1969 for declaration of title and for recovery of possession over the encroached portion of Plot Nos. 530, 531, 532 and for permanent injunction against the defendants. 4. The defendants contested the suit denying encroachment and/or forcible possession over the suit land. They claimed to have purchased Plot Nos. 5'33 and 534, measuring 25 decimals and 12 decimals respectively, by registered sale deed dated 13.2.1967, from Wahida Bibi, which originally belonged to one Reyasat Mian of Jharia and was auction sold by court in respect of a mortgage decree. According to the defendants, who were respectively wife and husband, the wall in question was standing on the same site for more than twenty four years and they simply raised its height and repaired the old wall in the premises after purchase. 5. The trial court held that the plaintiffs did not file suit within twelve years from their alleged date of dispossession. They have no subsisting title over the suit land, described in Schedule 'B' to the plaint. Plaintiff's case for possession and dispossession, as made out in the plaint, was also not believed and the suit was held to be barred by time. It was further held that the defendants' vendor had already acquired perfect title over the suit land by adverse possession. on account of continuous physical and uninterrupted possession for more than twelve years. Plaintiff's appeal against trial court decree was also dismissed on 17.6.1987. 6. Present second appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law: "Whether the learned court of appeal below in deciding point no. 2 framed by him was required to consider the oral evidence on record"? 7. It is relevant to state that defendants in their written statement specifically pleaded that the wall in question was standing at the same Sit8 for more than twenty four years. The question of encroachment upon Plot nos. 531 and 532 does not arise at all and that even if there be any encroachment thereon, the same was done more than twenty four years ago by the predecessor -in -interest of the vendor of defendant no. 1, who treated the said portion of the land as a part and parcel of their survey settlement Plots 533 and 534. Exercising the physical possession on the aforesaid land openly and adversely to all including the plaintiffs, the vendor of defendant no. 1 had acquired a perfect and indefeasible title thereon and on purchase of the same, defendant no. 1 also required perfect title. 8. Challenging the defendants' claim of right, title and interest over the aforesaid plot nos. 533 and 534, the plaintiffs had earlier tiled Title Suit No. 16 of 1968, which was decreed on 21.4.1977 and the said decree was confirmed in Title Appeal No.35 of 1974, Second Appeal No. 80 of 1977 (R) and Civil Appeal No. 2748 of 1988 up to the apex Court. The claim of defendants' vendor over plot nos. 533 and 534 was negatived on the ground that the court's auction sale in favour of Kohidan, the vendor of defendant no. 1 being defective, title of judgment debtor (present appellant) was not affected. 9. In such circumstance, on the basis of own case of defendant no. 1 that encroachment, if any, over the present suit land was made by the predecessor -in -interest of her vendor, by treating the suit land as part and parcel of their plot nos. 533 and 534, but she failed to substantiate her claim over those two plot nos. 533 and 534, itself, the plaintiffs' suit, in my opinion, was fit to be decreed. When it was found and declared by the court below that defendant no. 1 had no interest in those two plot nos. 533 and 534, her claim of adverse possession, over the suit land solely on the ground treating the same to be part of those two plots also failed. 10. Hence, in my opinion, on the basis of decree passed in Title Suit No. 46 of 1968 in favour of the present plaintiff in respect of plot nos. 533 and 534 against the defendant no. 1, her interest in the suit land, i.e., portion of plot nos. 530, 531 and 532 is also negatived and it is declared that the plaintiff has got right, title and interest over the suit land, detailed in Schedule 'B' to the plaint and is entitled to recover possession thereof. 11. In the result, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the court below are set aside, this appeal is allowed and the suit is decreed. However, there would be no order as to costs.;