VISHNUDEO NARAYAN, J. - (1.) THIS appeal at the instance of the plaintiff -appellant has been preferred against the impugned judgment and decree dated 08.12.1988 and 22.12.1988 respectively passed in Title Appeal No. 2 of 1986 by Shri Bhikari Ram, 1st Additional District Judge, Palamau whereby and whereunder the judgment and decree dated 29.11.1985 and 12.10.1985 passed in Title Suit No. 11 of 1984 by Munsif, Daltonganj were set aside and appeal was allowed.
(2.) THE appellant had filed the said title suit for declaration of his title and confirmation of possession over the suit land bearing plot Nos. 160. 161, 163 and 290 appertaining to the "dar -raiyati" khata No. 4 situate in village Banjari PS Daltonganj now Chainpur District Palamau fully detailed in Schedule A of the plaint. The case of the appellant in brief is that khata No. 11 of village Banjari stands recorded in the name of Nayak Tell in the cadastral Survey Records of Right and it consisted of five plots i.e. plot Nos. 160, 161, 162, 163 and 290 having an area of 1.24 acres, 90 acres, 6 acres, 30 acres and 1.78 acres respectively, the total area being 4.28 acres and Dildar Jolha was recorded as dar - raiyati in respect of all the plots aforesaid except plot No. 162 under dar -raiyati khaia No. 4 under the receded tenant Nayak Teli of khata No. 11 and the area of dar -raiyati khata as 4.22, acres. Nayak Teli aforesaid died leaving behind his major son Deni Teli @ Ramdeni Teli and minor son Dukhi Teli and finding the land of ratyatt khata No. 11 non profitable, the said Deni Teli as self and guardian of Dukhi Teli surrendered their right in respect thereof to the landlord i.e. Khas Mahal authority on account of non -payment of rent against him for which a certificate case was pending. Dildar Jolha had died leaving behind his two sons Ganu Mian and Shekhawat Mian who were in cultivating possession of the suit land and, thereafter Shekhawat Mian died issue less and Ganu Mian continued in cultivating possession over the same exclusively. There was rent suit filed by Khas Mahal, Deputy Collector against Deni Teli, the son of the recorded tenant Nayak Teli. The said Ganu Mian, the father of the appellant Ibrahim Mian deposited Rupees 26/8/0 pie and Rupee 1/5/0 pie vide Challan No. 16, dated 30.11.1937 and Challan No. 4, dated 30.11.1938 respectively in favour of the Khas Mahal Deputy Collector in Case No. 177 of 1936 -37 and prior to that he had also deposited a sum of Rs. 4/ - on 30.11.1932 and Ganu Mian had become the raiyatt of khata No. 11 and the darraiyati of khata No. 4 and his right as raiyatt was recognized by the landlord over the holding and he was mutated and, thereafter, he was paying rent of the holding to the landlord and got rent receipts and he paid the rent so long he was alive. Mis case further is that Ganu Mian has neither surrendered his holding not made any kind of transfer in respect of the holding aforesaid to anybody much less the contesting respondents. The said Ganu Mian died about 30 years prior to the suit and thereafter, the appellant paid the rent of the suit plots. The appellant constructed house over four decimals of the land of plot No. 290 and also dug a kuccha well after his ancestral house over the land of khata No. 8 fell down and he used the remaining land of plot No. 290 as Garbhari which remained in his possession. He transferred 0.50 acres out of plot No. 161 by executing a sale deed in favour of Dil Mohammad Mian and after his death his widow Nagia Bibi transferred the said land to Isa Khalifa (defendant No. 7). The appellant also transferred 9 kathas out of plot No. 290 to defendant No. 9 Taj Mohammad and the land so transferred by him out of the aforesaid two plots are not the subject matter of this suit. At the stage of khanapuri in the recent Revisional Survey the respondents with a view to lay false claim over the suit land lodged Sanha before Chainpur Police Station and got a favourable report submitted by the Officer Incharge of the said Police Station on 19.08.1983 on the basis of which a proceeding under Sec.144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure vide Miscellaneous Case No. 358 of 1983 was initiated between respondent Mansaf Mian as 1st party and defendant No. 8 Matbar Mian and others as 2nd party in respect of the plot No. 163 and 290 of khata No. 11 besides other lands and the said proceeding was decided against the 2nd party aforesaid and in the said proceeding it has been stated by the respondents that they claim the suit property on the basis of Sada agreement purported to have been executed by Ganu Mian in favour of Butan Mian the father of the contesting respondents but in fact Ganu Mian had never obtained any amount from Butan Mian nor has he executed any Sada agreement in his favour and the said Sada agreement is a forged and fabricated document and Butan Mian had no concern at all with the suit land and having a cloud cast on the title of the appellant he had filed the said suit.
(3.) DEFENDANT -respondent Nos. 7, 8 and 9 have filed their written statement stating inter alia, therein that they are in possession of the lands transferred to them by virtue of the sale deeds for consideration executed by the appellant and the contesting respondents have no right, title and possession over the land which they have acquired by purchase. It is alleged that defend ant - respondent No. 7 Isa Khalifa has purchased 50 decimals in plot No. 161. 34 decimals in plot No. 160 and 15 decimals in plot No. 163 from Nagia Biwi, the transferee of the appellant by virtue of the sale deed dated 10.10.1963 and he is in possession over the same and paying rent to the State and defendant -respondent No. 8 Matahar Mian has purchased 27 decimals of land of plot No. 160, 38 decimals of land of plot No. 160 and again 40 decimals of plot No. 160 by virtue of the sale deeds dated 07.12.1956. 21.08.1956 and 23.03.1957 respectively either executed by the appellant or his brother Ismail and he is in possession over the same and paying rent to the State. Defendant -respondent No. 9 Taj Mohammad has purchased 35 -1/2 decimals of land of plot No. 290 from the appellant by virtue of the registered sale deed dated 10.07.1969 and he is in cultivating possession over the same and paying rent to the State.;