Judgement JUDGMENT:- First Appeals Nos. 14 of 1966 and 2 of 1967, filed respectively by Chandra Kumar Roy and Birendra Bijoy Majumder, arise out of Title Suit No. 30 of 1964 instituted by Kashi Prasad Misra on 30th of November, 1964, for possession of certain properties comprised in jote No. 188, mouja Purba Debendra Chandra Nagar. All-told there were 12 defendants in the suit including the two appellants who were respectively defendants Nos. 2 and 1. The suit was decreed against all the defendants by the trial Court and since defendants Nos. 3 to 12 have not come up in appeal this Court is not concerned with those parts of the properties which were in their occupation. 2. Feru Goala, by common agreement was the jotedar of lands covered by jotes Nos. 187, 188 and 189 of the mouja aforementioned. It is also not in dispute that Kashi Prasad Misra had secured a money decree against Feru Goala and that in execution of that decree all the three jotes were attached, Court auctioned, and purchased by the decree-holder himself. The sale in favour of the decree-holder was confirmed by the Court on 29-3-1954 and according to the allegations made in the plaint the plaintiff had secured possession of the lands purchased by him on 2-10-1955 through the Court. He alleged further that he had made over the lands purchased by him to some of the defendants (other than the appellants) as labourers but since those defendants did not share the produce with him he was left with no alternative but to file a suit for possession of the lands. It was also alleged that Feru Goala had made a large number of alienations of the lands purchased by him (the plaintiff) that Feru Goala had no authority to make any transfers of the lands of which he had ceased to be the owner and that as such he was not bound by house transfers. 3. The defendants Nos. 1 to 4, 10 and 11 filed separate written statements. The burden of the defence adopted by defendants Nos. 3. The defendants Nos. 1 to 4, 10 and 11 filed separate written statements. The burden of the defence adopted by defendants Nos. 1 and 2 was that the plaintiff did not continue to be the owner of the land purchased by him in Court auction because immediately after that purchase he had entered into same agreement with Feru Goala from whom he happened to secure some money in consideration of having relinquished his title to the land in his favour. To buttress this defence they pleaded that Feru Goala had made a large number of transfers of the lands covered by the three jotes and that the plaintiff had never taken any objections against those transfers. They further pleaded that it was Feru Goala or his family members including his sons-in-law who had been in possession of the lands right from the date the plaintiff had purchased the land in Court auction. The defendant No. 1 pleaded that he had purchased 1 drone 8 kanis and odd land from Feru Goala and his wife in good faith and for valuable consideration and that this sale was within the knowledge of the plaintiff. Another plea taken by him was that Feru Goala had sold the land to him after mentioning that fact to Kashi Prasad Misra. On the basis of this last mentioned allegation the defendant No. 1 pleaded estoppel and acquiescence against the plaintiff besides setting up the provisions of Section 41, Transfer of Property Act, in support of his title to the land. 4. The defendant No. 2 laid claim to 6 kanis of land in jote No. 188 qua which he had allegedly entered into agreement of sale with Feru Goala in Baishakh, 1353 B. S., and added that he had built his homestead on 2 kanis out of the same. Another plea set up by him was that in respect of this 6 kanis of land he had filed Title Suit against Kashi Prasad Misra and Feru Goala who had respectively been cited in that suit as defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2, that suit was decreed in his favour, and that Second Appeal No. 19 of 1962 arising out of that suit was pending decision in the Court of the Judicial Commissioner. 5. As many as 11 issues were settled between the parties. 5. As many as 11 issues were settled between the parties. Practically speaking all the issues were decided in favour of the plaintiff by the trial Court by its judgment dated 12-10-1966 and in consequence the suit was decreed in the form prayed for. 6. The plaintiff Kashi Prasad Misra died during the pendency of the suit and his widow Rajeswari Devi was brought on the record as his sole legal representative. 7. The dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 2 Chandra Kumar Roy can be disposed of in a few words. It has been admitted by the counsel for the plaintiff-respondent that Second Appeal No. 19 of 1962 was remanded by the Judicial Commissioner to the trial Court for fresh decision after quashing the decrees made by the trial Court and the first appellate Court. Shri N.C. Roy, the learned counsel representing the appellant Chandra Kumar Roy, has placed on the record of this appeal the judgment dated 7-2-1967 passed by the Munsiff after remand of the suit as also a copy of the decree based on that judgment. The judgment and the decree bring out that the suit of Chandra Kumar Roy was decreed on the finding that he had purchased the land on payment of Rs. 2,400/- to Feru Goala. The Munsiff also held that Chandra Kumar Roy had acquired valid title to the property as a consequence of purchase from Feru Goala. In face of the judgment and the decree placed on the record of this appeal the controversy between plaintiff-appellant and Chandra Kumar Roy has come to an end in respect of 6 kanis of land. The judgment was given on 7-2-1967 and it is not the claim of Shri M.R. Choudhury, the learned Advocate representing the plaintiff-respondent, that any appeal had been filed against the decree following the judgment dated 7-2-1967. However, Shri Choudhury has urged that the decree of the Munsiffs Court is not binding on his client because she had not received any notice about the proceedings done in the suit after the Munsiff had received the file on remand from the Judicial Commissioners Court. It may be so. But that fact does not deprive the judgment and the decree of their apparent value. It may be so. But that fact does not deprive the judgment and the decree of their apparent value. If the plaintiff-respondent wants to challenge the judgment and the decree, the proper course for her to follow is to move the Munsiffs Court under Order 9, Rule 13, of the Civil Procedure Code and pray for quashing the decree. Until that decree is set aside it carries full weight in the eye of law. Therefore, I have to assume the validity of the decree made by the Munsiffs Court and that decree having determined the dispute between the parties qua 6 kanis of land the plaintiff-respondent cannot be heard to lay claim to the same land over again. It may be mentioned that according to the decree the ownership of Chandra Kumar Roy over 6 kanis of land now in dispute was declared, his possession over that land confirmed, and that defendants, Feru Goala and Kashi Prasad Misra, were "restrained permanently from causing any disturbance to the pltff." 8. It may have been urged, though actually it has not been, that the Munsiffs jurisdiction being limited to Rs. 5,000/- and the value of the present suit being Rupees 6,000/- the decree in the previous suit does not operate as res judicata because the Munsiff could not have tried the present suit. However, that is not the position of law and this despite the fact that Section 11, Civil Procedure Code, provides, as a condition for operation of res judicata, that the Court which decided the first suit should be competent to try the subsequent suit and this is not so in the present case. The expression suit used in Section 11 it is well settled, means the dispute as might have formed the subject of a separate suit independently of the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code which enable a person to unite several causes of action in one and the same suit. In other words, if it is possible to treat the entire cause of action upon which the latter suit is founded as divisible and if in the earlier suit one of the component parts of the cause of action was relied on, then the previous decision will stand as a bar to the extent of the matter involved in the earlier suit. This principle may be illustrated to bring out its exact significance, and the illustration is furnished by a decision of a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court reported in (1885) ILR 7 All 247 (FB), Sheoraj Rai v. Kashinath. The relevant facts of that case are that K sued S on two bonds and S contended that the two bonds sued upon as well as another two bonds had already been satisfied by him. This contention of S was found against him and a decree was passed in favour of K. Subsequently S sued K for return of the four bonds alleging that the same had been satisfied. The Court which tried the former suit had no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the subsequent suit on the four bonds. The question that arose for decision in the second suit was whether it was barred in respect of two bonds on which K had founded his earlier suit against S. The answer was in the affirmative and the reason given in support of that finding was that the suit in respect of each of the bonds must be regarded as a separate suit inasmuch as they could have each formed the subject-matter of a separate suit. The subsequent suit, it was concluded, must be taken to consist of really two suits for the purpose of Section 11, one of which, namely, that in respect of two bonds in Ks suit, was competent to be tried by the Court in the former suit and therefore the second suit, so far as those bonds are concerned, is clearly barred by res judicata. This aspect of the applicability of res judicata is discussed in notes 21, 80 and 81 of Chitaleys Commentaries on Code of Civil Procedure, 8th Edition. In note 81 the proposition stated is that the party who has lost in one Court cannot add some more causes of action to the original cause of action in the earlier suit for the purpose of swelling the amount of the valuation and then claim that the former Court being not competent to try the subsequent suit the decision given by it does not operate as res judicata. It is further mentioned in note 81 that if it were otherwise, any defeated party can, by merely adding another claim, re-agitate the same question in a fresh suit filed in a higher Court, and that for the purpose of deciding a question of res judicata each cause of action in the subsequent suit should be treated as a separate suit and if it is found that one of these causes of action is relied upon in the earlier suit, then, although taking all the causes of action together the second suit may be outside the jurisdiction of the former Court, the former decision will operate as res judicata in the subsequent suit. Shri M.R. Choudhury was unable to dispute the correctness of this proposition of law and so I hold that the decision in the former suit between Chandra Kumar Roy as plaintiff and Kashi Prasad Misra as defendant No. 1 and Feru Goala as defendant No. 2 respecting 6 kanis of land now in possession of Chandra Kumar Roy operates as res judicata. 9. This takes me to the thickness of the dispute which centers round the land measuring 1 drone 8 kanis and odd, jote No. 188, which is admittedly in occupation of the defendant No. 1 Birendra Bijoy Majumder. The stand of this defendant No. 1 at present is that though the plaintiff Kashi Prasad Misra had purchased the land in Court auction and the sale was confirmed in his name on 29-3-1954, he never entered into possession of the land and that actually he had surrendered the land to Feru Goala in return for the money paid to him by the latter. It is Feru Goala or his relations who have been in occupation of the land. It is further urged by defendant No. 1 that those persons have been transferring the lands to various persons in their capacity as owners, he being one of them. According to defendant No. 1, he had purchased the lands in his occupation by two sale deeds, one dated 30th of September, 1963 and the other dated 30th of November, 1963, respectively marked as Ext. D-18 and Ext. D-17. Actually Ext. D-17 is a sale deed made by the wife and the minor son of Feru Goala but Feru Goala had executed the same in his capacity as guardian of his minor son. D-18 and Ext. D-17. Actually Ext. D-17 is a sale deed made by the wife and the minor son of Feru Goala but Feru Goala had executed the same in his capacity as guardian of his minor son. Shri Choudhury denied on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent that Kashi Prasad Misra had not secured possession of the land purchased by him, or that he had agreed to return the purchased property to Feru Goala, or that he had received any money from the latter. However, after examining the available data on the record in the light of the arguments addressed at the bar, I feel convinced that some understanding had been reached between Kashi Prasad Misra and Feru Goala on or before 2-10-1955, that some money had been paid by Feru Goala to Kashi Prasad Misra as price of the land of which Kashi Prasad Misra had acquired ownership consequent upon confirmation of the auction sale in his favour, and that the land which was the subject of auction sale never went into possession of the auction purchaser, the judgment-debtor having continued to enjoy its possession on the strength of the understanding reached between the parties. The material which has influenced me in reaching those conclusions I now proceed to detail. 10. In Para 3 of the plaint Kashi Prasad Misra admitted that Feru Goala and his sons-in-law wanted to purchase the suit land from him, that negotiations were set afoot and that sometimes Feru Goala wanted to purchase the land in dispute while at others his sons-in-law would negotiate with him to purchase some part of it, that both sets of would-be-purchasers sought time from him to arrange money, and that as he "had no charm for the land he also allowed time to Feru Goala and to defendants Nos. 4 and 11". Ext. D-7 is a copy of the statement dated 22-1-1960, which Kashi Prasad Misra made in the Title Suit No. 71 of 1958 which Chandra Kumar Roy, the defendant No. 2 of the present suit, had filed against him respecting his 6 kanis of land now admittedly in his possession. 4 and 11". Ext. D-7 is a copy of the statement dated 22-1-1960, which Kashi Prasad Misra made in the Title Suit No. 71 of 1958 which Chandra Kumar Roy, the defendant No. 2 of the present suit, had filed against him respecting his 6 kanis of land now admittedly in his possession. In that statement Kashi Prasad Misra admitted that Feru Goala had negotiated with him for purchase back of the land sold in Court auction, that Feru Goala "has paid some money to me", and that Mahadev, the son-in-law of Feru Goala, had taken the entire property purchased by him. It was further admitted that Kashi Prasad Misra had not taken possession of some portion of the land purchased by him. The importance of the statement made by Kashi Prasad Misra, on 22-1-1960, on solemn affirmation in a Court lies in the facts that he had been paid some money by Feru Goala for re-purchase of the land acquired by him in Court auction and that the whole of that property was then not in his possession. We have it from the statement of D. W. 12 Paresh Nath Majumder, once a medical practitioner at Jirania and at present a farmer by profession, that he happens to be the attesting witness of the report Ext. P-6, dated 2-10-1955, which was prepared by the Bailiff to whom the writ Ext. P-5 for delivery of possession had been entrusted for execution, that the Bailiff never went to the spot for delivery of possession to the auction-purchaser and that instead Kashi Prasad Misra accompanied by the Bailiff went to his house, that it was then settled between Kashi Prasad Misra and Feru Goala that the latter would pay Rupees 7,000/- to the former, that Feru Goala paid that amount to Kashi Prasad Misra in two instalments within two months of that settlement. The witness affirmed that Feru Goala had taken him along with him to Kashi Prasad Misra at the time the money was paid. The witness also explained why the sale deed could not be executed. His version is that some disputes cropped up between Feru Goala and his sons-in-law and for that reason Kashi Prasad Misra "did not execute any deed." The statement of this witness has been disbelieved by the trial Court for reasons which do not appear to be convincing. The witness also explained why the sale deed could not be executed. His version is that some disputes cropped up between Feru Goala and his sons-in-law and for that reason Kashi Prasad Misra "did not execute any deed." The statement of this witness has been disbelieved by the trial Court for reasons which do not appear to be convincing. The merit of testimony of Shri Paresh Nath Majumder lies in the fact that it accords with the version given by Kashi Prasad Misra in his Court statement dated 22-1-1960 (copy Ext. D-7). 11. A large number of documents have been placed on record by defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in refutation of the claim of the plaintiff that he had never relinquished ownership of or possession over the land purchased by him. Those documents bring out that the auction purchaser never took any step to secure mutation of the land in his name, that he never paid rent of that land, that the rent was actually paid by Feru Goala even after the report Ext. P-6 was made by the Bailiff on 2-10-1955, and that the only document which Kashi Prasad Misra executed in respect of any part of the land purchased by him is the one, dated 7-8-1958, of which Ext. P-7 is the copy. This Ext. P-7 was executed by Kashi Prasad Misra in favour of Nibaran Chandra Das and Smt. Bindu Bala Das on 7-8-1958 and it relates to about 6 kanis of land covered by jote No. 189. According to the recitals in the document, Kashi Prasad Misra had sold this parcel of land to the two persons aforementioned for a sum of Rs. P-7 was executed by Kashi Prasad Misra in favour of Nibaran Chandra Das and Smt. Bindu Bala Das on 7-8-1958 and it relates to about 6 kanis of land covered by jote No. 189. According to the recitals in the document, Kashi Prasad Misra had sold this parcel of land to the two persons aforementioned for a sum of Rs. 2,500/- as far back as 30th of July, 1956, but at that time it was Feru Goala, the previous owner of the land, who executed the sale deed in favour of the vendees as agreed to by them and Feru Goala, and that since at present the vendees are "apprehending that I or my heirs may proclaim my or their right over the land described below and deny your title, or that somebody else may deny your jote title over the land described below, you having expressed this apprehension to me, I, the executant, in order to relieve you of such fear, do hereby execute this sale deed for 6 kanis and 5 gandas of land described in schedule below acknowledging receipt of the entire consideration, as given by you before and thereby give you all sorts of title". Evidently the land purchased by Nibaran Chandra Das and Smt. Bindu Bala Das had been sold to them by Feru Goala on 30th of July, 1956, and the document Ext. P-7 was secured by the vendees from Kashi Prasad Misra only to disarm him or his heirs from laying any claim to that land. Therefore, it is easy to conclude that it were Feru Goala and his family relations who were in actual enjoyment of the land despite the auction sale in favour of Kashi Prasad Misra and that it were they who had been not only enjoying the land but also making transfers of various parts of it. The plaintiff admitted in his own plaint itself that he had learnt that Feru Goala had been transferring parts of the land purchased by him in Court auction. 12. With a view to belittle the value of the testimony of D. W. 12 Paresh Nath Majumder, an attesting witness of the report Ext. P-6 dated 2-10-1955, Shri Choudhury wanted this Court to accept as truthful the statement of P. W. 2 Mahendra Kumar Bhowmick, another attesting witness of Ext. 12. With a view to belittle the value of the testimony of D. W. 12 Paresh Nath Majumder, an attesting witness of the report Ext. P-6 dated 2-10-1955, Shri Choudhury wanted this Court to accept as truthful the statement of P. W. 2 Mahendra Kumar Bhowmick, another attesting witness of Ext. P-6, who affirmed that he was present at the time of delivery of possession and that he had attested the report evidencing the fact of delivery of the possession at the spot. However, his testimony is clearly unconvincing. According to his version, Kashi Prasad Misra was present at the time of delivery of possession and he secured the possession by getting the land ploughed by Feru Goala and his sons-in-law in their capacity as bargadars. It looks odd that Kashi Prasad Misra should avail of the services of the judgment-debtor and his sons-in-law for securing delivery of possession. Moreover, it was not urged at the bar by Shri Choudhury that Kashi Prasad Misra was present at the spot at the time of delivery of possession. According to P. W. 4 Jajneswar Nandi, one Akhil Bhattacherjee was present on behalf of Kashi Prasad Misra to secure the possession and that it was he (P. W. 4) who had been summoned by Akhil Bhattacherjee to plough the land. P. W. 2 Mahendra Bhowmick does not mention the presence of either Jajenswar Nandi or of Akhil Bhattacherjee at the time of the delivery of possession nor was Akhil Bhattacherjee examined by the plaintiff. Moreover, according to Mahendra Bhowmick the auction-purchaser had taken delivery of the entire 6 drones of land but it is no longer in dispute that possession of the entire land covered by jote No. 189 and of the homestead part of jote No. 188 was not taken. These facts are clearly deducible from the report Ext. P-6 and were admitted as correct by Shri M.R. Choudhury. Hence I cannot attach any value to the testimony of Mahendra Bhowmick and so the statement of Paresh Nath Majumder stands untarnished. 13. The conclusions reached above may now be summed up. Kashi Prasad Misra had undoubtedly purchased the lands covered by jotes Nos. P-6 and were admitted as correct by Shri M.R. Choudhury. Hence I cannot attach any value to the testimony of Mahendra Bhowmick and so the statement of Paresh Nath Majumder stands untarnished. 13. The conclusions reached above may now be summed up. Kashi Prasad Misra had undoubtedly purchased the lands covered by jotes Nos. 187, 188 and 189, that sale certificate had been issued in his name, that he had moved the Court for granting him possession of the land, that the possession was actually never taken by him at the spot though the report Ext. P-6 was prepared, that report was drawn up at the house of D. W. 12 Paresh Nath Majumder, that in the house of that witness it was settled between Kashi Prasad Misra and Feru Goala that the former would sell the land to the latter for certain amount, that at least a part of that amount had been paid by Feru Goala to Kashi Prasad Misra, that Kashi Prasad Misra never bothered to secure possession of the land, and that he raised no objection to various transfers of his land made by Feru Goala or his sons-in-law. 14. The question that arises for determination at this stage is what is the consequence of the set of facts outlined in the last paragraph. Shri J.K. Roy, the learned Advocate representing Birendra Bijoy Majumder, submitted that those facts along with another fact mentioned by his client in his statement as D. W. 8 leave no room for doubt that the plaintiff is estopped from bringing the suit and that, in addition the provisions of Section 41, Transfer of Property Act, stand in his way in claiming any right to the land in occupation of Birendra Bijoy Majumder. The fact which emerges from the statement of this defendant is that Feru Goala had taken him in the month of October, 1963, to Kashi Prasad Misra and that he had mentioned to the latter that he wanted to sell his land to him (Birendra Bijoy Majumder). The relevant part of the statement of Birendra Bijoy Majumder is that he had purchased 1 drone 9 kanis 15 gandas from Feru Goala in one transaction and he had also secured another sale deed from Feru Goala and the latters wife and minor son. The witness said further that he had paid Rs. The relevant part of the statement of Birendra Bijoy Majumder is that he had purchased 1 drone 9 kanis 15 gandas from Feru Goala in one transaction and he had also secured another sale deed from Feru Goala and the latters wife and minor son. The witness said further that he had paid Rs. 16,000/- to Feru Goala in connection with the sale deed Ext. D-17. The witness also testified that he had undertaken some enquiry respecting the land and that it never came to his knowledge that Kashi Prasad Misra had taken over possession of the land after auction purchase, and he added that Feru Goala went to Kashi Prasad Misra accompanied by him "in order to negotiate regarding sale and purchase" and that at that time Kashi Prasad Misra did not tell him that he had "auction-purchased this land". The witness stated further that Kashi Prasad Misra did not get his name mutated. Though Shri M.R. Choudhury challenged the veracity of the averments of this witness but he could advance no convincing reason in justification of his contention. He invited the Courts attention to the statement of D. W. 4 Nepal Chandra Goala, the defendant No. 11 of the suit, who appeared as a witness in support of his own case. During the course of his cross-examination by the plaintiff this defendant No. 11 happened to state that the fact of Kashi Prasad Misra having purchased the land in Court auction was "fully within the knowledge" of defendant No. 1 ". This fact, it has to be emphasised, was not mentioned by the witness during the course of his examination-in-chief. I have studied the statement of this witness very carefully and have reached the conclusion that it is not safe to rely upon him. During cross-examination by the defendant No. 1 the witness said that he had some talk with defendant No. 1 and it is in the course of that talk that the defendant No. 1 learnt that Kashi Prasad Misra had taken possession of the land. However, significantly enough, he did not clarify what was the occasion of the talk between him and the defendant No. 1. This Nepal Chandra Goala, it may be mentioned, is the son-in-law of Feru Goala and he frankly admitted that there had been long drawn-out litigation between him and the defendant No. 1. However, significantly enough, he did not clarify what was the occasion of the talk between him and the defendant No. 1. This Nepal Chandra Goala, it may be mentioned, is the son-in-law of Feru Goala and he frankly admitted that there had been long drawn-out litigation between him and the defendant No. 1. Another vital fact which requires mention is that Nepal Chandra Goala did not contest the suit. Equally significant is the fact that Jajneswar Nandi P. W. 4 conceded that he had been requested by the sons-in-law of Feru Goala to appear as witness for the plaintiff. In the background of the facts that there has been long drawn-out litigation between defendant No. 1 on the one hand and the sons-in-law of Feru Goala on the other, that the sons-in-law of Feru Goala did not contest the suit, and that they went a step further in requesting Jajneswar Nandi P. W. 4 to appear as witness for the plaintiff, I find considerable substance in the contention of Shri J.K. Roy that Nepal Chandra Goala and his brothers-in-law are in collusion at present with the plaintiff and that it is they who have instigated this litigation, their object being to secure more land which once belonged to Feru Goala. If I reject the statement of Nepal Chandra Goala to the effect that defendant No. 1 had knowledge of the ownership of and possession over the suit land of Kashi Prasad Misra, I see no difficulty in taking the testimony of defendant No. 1 at its face value. If defendant No. 1 had been taken by Feru Goala to Kashi Prasad Misra before he purchased the land in November, 1963, and if Kashi Prasad Misra did not state that he was the owner of the land when Feru Goala sought his permission to sell the land, surely the defendant No. 1 could assume that Kashi Prasad Misra had no title to the land. Kashi Prasad Misra would in such an event be estopped from laying claim to the land after defendant No. 1 had purchased the same by paying no less than Rs. 16,000/-. I, therefore, hold that the plaintiff is estopped from claiming the ownership or possession of the land which had been sold by Feru Goala after the latter had visited him in company with defendant No. 1. 16,000/-. I, therefore, hold that the plaintiff is estopped from claiming the ownership or possession of the land which had been sold by Feru Goala after the latter had visited him in company with defendant No. 1. Obviously the land which was purchased by Feru Goala after October, 1963, is the land mentioned in the sale deed Ext. D-17, dated 30th of November, 1963. This land had been sold by Feru Goalas widow and son to the defendant No. 1 and Feru Goala had executed the deed in his capacity as the guardian of his minor son. However, the plea of estoppel is not available to defendant No. 1 in respect of the other sale deed Ext. D-18, dated 30th of September, 1963, because Feru Goala had exchanged talks, according to defendant No. 1, with Kashi Prasad Misra in October, 1963, and therefore those talks could have relevancy only to the sale deed dated 30th of November, 1963. 15. As a result of the conclusions reached above, I allow the appeal No. 14 of 1966 and on quashing the decree of the trial Court re. 6 kanis of land in occupation of the defendant No. 2 Chandra Kumar Roy, dismiss the plaintiffs suit in relation thereto. I also allow appeal No. 2 of 1967 of Birendra Bijoy Majumder, the defendant No. 1, in respect of land covered by sale deed Ext. D-17, dated 30th of November, 1963, and on quashing the decree of the trial Court respecting that land dismiss the plaintiffs suit in relation thereto. However, I dismiss that appeal in respect of the land covered by sale deed Ext. D-18, dated 30th of September, 1963. Taking all the factors into consideration, I leave the parties to bear their own costs in both the Courts. Order accordingly.