(1.) THIS second appeal has been brought by the Plaintiff against the reversing judgment of the lower appellate arising out of a suit for possession of the disputed Bhogra land after setting aside a Kabala executed by Defendants 2 to 4 in favour of Defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 2 is the father of the Plaintiff and Defendants 3 and 4. Defendant No. 2 is one of the cosharer -gaontia. Plaintiff's case is that the land in dispute which is a Bhogra -land fell to the share of the Plaintiff in a partition between the Plaintiff's father and the other brothers, and, as such, the father and the other brothers had no right to execute a deed of conveyance in favour of Defendant No. 1 and further that the transaction in suit is not bonafide and is not supported by consideration and legal necessity.
(2.) DEFENDANT No. 1, the contesting Defendant, the purchaser from Defendants to 4, has taken up the position that the Plaintiff has no right to bring the present suit and further that the deed executed by Defendants 2 to 4 in his favour on 1 -4 -48 is for consideration and is valid and binding against the Plaintiff's interest.
(3.) IN a suit of this nature where the Plaintiffs prays for possession on the basis of his title it is for the Plaintiff to make out h title before the court in order to get any relief whatsoever in the suit. When admittedly the land in dispute is a Bhogra land and that the father (Defendant No. 2) alone is one of the cosharer -gaontias, it is clear to me that the Plaintiff (P. 3) has no interest in the disputed land as admittedly he himself is not one of the cosharer -gaontias. The position is clear that Bogra lands are held by the sole gaontia or cosharer -gaontias only by way of remuneration for holding the office of gaontia or cosharer -gaontias. When the Bhogra lands are attached to the office the sons cannot have any right to the disputed property. As such, the Plaintiff has no right to bring the present suit for possession or to set aside the sale.