SHEIKH BASHIRUDDIN Vs. DHANI MOHAMMAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants -first party are the appellants. Defendants 1 and 2 are the sons and defendant No. 3 is the daughter of the deceased, Karu, and these three constitute defendants -first party. They have appealed from the judgment of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Third Court, Purnea, who set aside the judgment, and decree of the trial court and decreed the plaintiff's suit on contest against defendants -first party arid without contest against the rest.

(2.) In order to appreciate the arguments presented by Mr. M. Mazhar Hussain, on behalf of the appellants, and, Mr. S. Akbar Hussain, on behalf of the plaintiff -respondent No. 1, it would be useful to state the facts of the case so far as they are material for deciding the present appeal.

(3.) The disputed lands are C.S. No. 249 under Khata 22 having an area of 1.16 acres which is equivalent to R. S. Plots 592 and 595 having an area of 1.25 acres. The other plots are C.S. Plots 19, 60 and 63 under Khata 31(Ka) which are equivalent to R. S. Plots 217, 222 and 230 having an area of 1.38 acres. The total area of the lands in dispute, therefore, is 2.54 acres. These lands admittedly belonged to three brothers, namely, Karu, father of the appellants; Moniruddin and Maruf. The aforesaid three brothers sold the disputed lands to two persons, namely, Doman and Basarat, who subsequently, in their turn, sold the lands again to Karu and Moniruddin only. Later on, the heirs of Karu and Moniruddin sold the lands in suit on 4 -3 -1943 under Ext. 1 to four persons, namely, Dost Mohammad, Shamsul, Bali alias Biloo and Mali, who subsequently died heirless. The area conveyed under Ext. 1, as appears from the sale deed, is 2.11 acres. Sometime later, in 1954, the heirs of Dost Mohammad, Shamsul and Bali executed a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in the name of defendant No. 4, Insar Ali, who is respondent No. 2 before this Court, under a sale deed dated 9 -5 -1954, Ext. 1/a. In the Survey Record of Rights, defendant No. 1 was recorded as Sikmidar under the plaintiff, who is respondent No. 1.