BAJRANGI GOPE Vs. RUPNARAIN MAHTON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal by the defendant first party against a decision of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Patna, reversing that of the Additional Munsif of Bihar, raises the question whether the plaintiffs as the purchasers of the land in suit by three unregistered sale deeds can recover possession as against the defendants in a suit for ejectment.

(2.) The plaintiffs purchased the land in suit by mean3 of three sale deeds, one for Rs. 50, dated 4 June 1936, the second for Rs. 100, dated 22 March, 1937, and the third for Rs. 55, dated 18 June 1938. The land subject to the sale was an occupancy holding which under the terms of Section 26(c), Bihar Tenancy Act, as amended in 1934, again as amended by Act XI

(11.) of 1938, requires that in order that a transfer of an occupancy holding can validly take place, it must be by a registered document. The defendants are the transferees from the transferee of Mt. Pano Kuer, who was the original tenant of this holding. It appears that Mt. Pano Kuer transferred by a registered document dated 7 September 1939 this holding 4o defendant second party, who in their turn sold it to defendant first party on 1 November 1941 by another registered document. In consequence of a proceeding under Section 144, Criminal P.C., in the year 1941 immediately after the execution of the sale deed in favour of the defendant first party, the plaintiffs case is, that their possession over the land in suit came to be disturbed. They, consequently, instituted the suit for & declaration of title and confirmation of possession, in the alternative, for recovery of possession.