JUDGMENT : Mohapatra, J. - 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. Both the courts below have found that the Sale took place prior to the partition, and as such, (P. 2) the Plaintiff's case that the land in dispute fell to the share of the Plaintiff has been negatived. It has been found that the transaction dated 1-4-38 is for legal necessity and for consideration. The trial court gave a decree to the Plaintiff on the basis that Bhogra land is not transferable at all. The lower appellate court, however, has dismissed the Plaintiff's suit on the ground that the transaction in suit could be construed to be a transaction of an amicable arrangement as between the co-sharers as is permissible under the rules of the State. It is to be noted here that Defendant No. 1 is a cosharer-gaontia as alleged by him. On a perusal of the rules of the state contained in the record of rights, it appears that Bhogra land is not transferable either by sale, gift or mortgage. It is also made clear in the rules that it is not even particle. But nevertheless there is a provision that the co-sharers may arrange for exclusive possession amongst themselves. On a perusal of the rules of the state contained in the record of rights, it appears that Bhogra land is not transferable either by sale, gift or mortgage. It is also made clear in the rules that it is not even particle. But nevertheless there is a provision that the co-sharers may arrange for exclusive possession amongst themselves. Manifestly it cannot be taken to be a case of an amicable arrangement for exclusive possession. On a fair reading of the document dated 1-4-38, the terms of which are categorical to the effect that it is a sale transaction for consideration where the executants completely divest themselves of all rights from the date of the sale, it is clear that the lower appellate Court was certainly wrong in construing the document as a sort of amicable arrangement between the cosharers for having exclusive possession. But this finding is not sufficient to dispose of the matter. 4. 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. It. The appeal therefore is dismissed even though for reasons different from those taken by the lower appellate Court. There will be no order as to costs of this Court. Appeal dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed