JUDGMENT Gurusharan Sharma, J. 1. Tejo Yadav of village Tilaiya, district Hazaribngh (now Koder-ma) left behind two sons. Barhan Yadav and Bijul Yadav. In R.S. Khatian hinds of Khata No. 760 of village Tilaiya stood recorded in the names of aforesaid two brothers. 2. Nunu Yadav son of Barhan Yadav filed Title Suit No. 78 of 1980 against his uncle Bijul Yadav for declaration of title over 1,39 aeres land of aforesaid Khata No. 760, detailed in Schedule A to the plaint. Subsequently Jamuni Devi, who was daughter of defendant No. 1 and was married with Badri Yadav was also added as defendant No. 2 in the suit. 3. Plaintiffs case was that his lather Barhan Yadav. as Karta of the joint family with his brother Bijul Yadav, settled Schedule A lands with him in Sikmi Darraiyali on annual rental of Rs 10/- by an unregistered document dated 21.4.1964. Plaintiff being the settled raiyat acquired occupancy right over the suit land. Under local uses and custom Sikmi Dar-ralyati settlement was recognised and sanctioned, as was prevalent in the locality from the time immemorial, as heritable. Defendant No. 1 by registered sale deed dated 11.1.1980 sold 1.30 acres land out of Schedule A lands to defendant No. 2. 4. Defendant No. 1 filed written statement stating, inter alia, that he was separate from his brother Barhan Yadav. He was living in his Nanihal at village Tilaiya, whereas Barhan Yadav was living at village Laheria with his father. Story of Sikmi Dar-raiyati settlement was false, incorrect and concocted. There was no local uses and custom whereby Sikmi Dar-raiyati settlement was recognised and sanctioned in the locality. According to the defendant, originally the suit lands belonged to Latu Yadav, who died leaving behind a daughter, Phulia Devi. who inherited his properties. She was married with Tejo Yadav. After her death, her two sons Barhan Yadav and Bijul Yadav inherited those properties, 5. Defendant No. 1 claimed to have transferred 1.30 acres lands bearing Plot Nos. 5733, 5734, 5735, 5736 and 5765 of Khata No. 760 to defendant No. 2 in his own right and was in exclusive possession of 9 decimals land, bearing Plot No. 5648 of the said Khata No. 760. 6. Defendant No. 1 claimed to have transferred 1.30 acres lands bearing Plot Nos. 5733, 5734, 5735, 5736 and 5765 of Khata No. 760 to defendant No. 2 in his own right and was in exclusive possession of 9 decimals land, bearing Plot No. 5648 of the said Khata No. 760. 6. Trial Court decreed the suit holding that plaintiff had got permanent and heritable title over the suit lands and sale deed dated 11.1.1980 was bogus transaction without any consideration, whereby defendant No. 2 did not acquire any interest in the suit properties. 7. Defendants preferred title Appeal No. 45 of 1983, which has been allowed by the impugned judgment and decree dated 26.8.1985. Trial Courts decree was set aside and the suit was dismissed. Hence plaintiff filed this appeal and defendants filed a cross objection challenging finding on Darraiyati settlements. 8. Trial Court observed that local custom regarding permanent nature of Sikmi Darraiyati, as claimed by the plaintiff, was established. Plaintiff discontinued payment of rent to the settler and amalgamated some of his raiyati lands with the suit lands and thereby he started claiming hostile title against the settler. He therefore, acquired title over the suit property by adverse possession. Consequently, by registered sale deed (Exhibit D) executed by defendant No. 1, defendant No. 2 did not acquire any right, title and interest over the suit lands. 9. On the other hand, it was observed by the first appellate Court that plaintiff was in possession of the suit lands since long, but he cannot challenge Exhibit D on the ground that it was collusive transfer. Passing of consideration cannot be challenged, except by the parties to the transaction or by those who claimed through those parties. 10. Admittedly, the suit property was inherited by both Barhan and Bijul from their mother, having equal shares and. therefore, one of them, namely, defendant No. 1 was not entitled to advance claim over the entire Schedule A lands, and transfer the same to defendant No. 2, who was none-else, but daughter of his brother-in-law. Secondly, there was no occasion for Barhan Yadav to make Dar- raiyati settlement of the suit lands to his son, the plaintiff. Thus, in my view, both the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 had equal shares in Schedule A property. This aspect of the matter was not considered by the Courts below. 11. Secondly, there was no occasion for Barhan Yadav to make Dar- raiyati settlement of the suit lands to his son, the plaintiff. Thus, in my view, both the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 had equal shares in Schedule A property. This aspect of the matter was not considered by the Courts below. 11. I, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court, and remit the appeal to the court of appeal below for hearing the parties afresh and after considering the evidence, both oral and documentary, already brought on record, decide it afresh on its own merit and in accordance with law. Lower Court records may be sent down. 12. In the result, this appeal is allowed and cross objection is dismissed with the above observations and directions, but without costs. 13. Appeal allowed.