(1.) This litigation has a chequered history involving jungle of facts in which the judgment dated 31-3-1958 of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Patna, in Title Suit No. 92 of 1955, instituted by the present plaintiff and one Domi Sao against the present defendants and others, which was confirmed in appeal by this Court in First Appeal No. 372 of 1953, furnishes a beacon light.
(2.) Within the Khagaul Municipality of the District of Patna there exists a house. Its holding number initially was Holding No. 1, Subsequently in the Municipal survey records its holding was shown as split up in two holdings-- one bearing Holding No. 1 and the other holding No. 1 (a), representing the northern 2/3rd and the southern l/3rd portions of the initial holding. Undisputedly, this holding at one time belonged to Quadir Bux and on his death it passed on to Abddul Hai, one Bibi Halima, sister of Abddul Hai, and others. In the year 1924, one Domi Sao, ancestor of defendants 3 to 8, purchased the interest of Abddul Hai in the property in suit. The interest of Halima was purchased by present defendants 1 and 2 by a registered sale deed dated 14-1-1949. The portion of the suit property purchased from Halima contained certain tenants thereon, who occupied the premises on payment of rent.
(3.) In the year 1949, Domi Sao as the sole plaintiff instituted two money suits 73 and 74, each of the year 1949, against the present defendants 1 and 2, who are the appellants before us, as also the tenants in occupation of the southern part of the disputed property. The relief claimed there, inter alia, was for the realisation of rent from the tenants existing on the same. The defendants of these money suits, including the present appellants, contested the suits and the same were dismissed. Domi Sao took up the matter in appeal, being Appeals Nos. 98 and 99, each of the year 1952. Subsequently as it appears, on some agreement between the parties to the appeal Domi Sao withdrew that appeal and the question of title was left open. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn but the cost awarded to the defendants remained intact.