JUDGMENT Gurusharan Sharma, J. 1. Plaintiffs are appellants. 2. Admittedly Bakhtaur Singh had two sons, Bhikhari Singh and Narayan Singh, Bhikhari Singh died leaving behind five sons. Chohan Singh, Ghinu Singh, Gopal Singh, Jagoo Singh and Jibu Singh. Narayan Singh had a son, Mithu Singh, who had two sons. Nirpu Singh and Tejo Singh and a daughter, who was married with Rupu Singh. Tejo Singh died issueless. Nirpu Singh had three daughters, namely. Khemni. Sibia and Rukni. Plaintiffs as well as defendants 1 and 2 are descendants of Bhikhari Singh. Rupu Singh had a son, Lalu Singh, who left behind three spns, Padu Singh, Tohi Singh and Jitan Singh, defendants 3 to 5. 3. In Khatian, lands of Khata No. 20 of village-Bardewa, District Hazaribagh stood recorded in the name of Nirpu Singh, Khata No. 21 lands jointly in the names of Nirpu Singh and Tejo Singh and Khata No. 22 lands in the names of Nirpu Singh and Tejo Singh one share and Bhawani Singh, son of Gyan Singh one share. Details of those lands were given in Schedule B to the plaint. 4. By two registered sale deeds dated 23-10-1967, Exts. 1 & 1/A, Sibia, daughter of Nirpu Singh sold Schedule B properties to the plaintiffs. They applied for mutation of their names in Register II. Anchal Adhikari concerned by order dated 21-2-1979 asked then to go to Civil Court. 5. Plaintiffs thereafter filed Title Suit No. 3 of 1980 for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and in alternative for recovery of possession against the defendants which has been dismissed by impugned judgment and decree dated 23-4-1986. 6. According to plaintiffs, after Tejo Singh died issueless, Nirpu Singh became the sole owner of the suit lands by survivership. One of his daughters, Khemni had already pre-deceased him and another daughter, Rukni died after his death. Plaintiffs, therefore, purchased the suit properties from his third daughter, Sibia and came in possession thereof. 7. Defendants 1 to 5 filed joint written statements and contested the suit. Another written statement supporting the case of defendants 1 to 5 was filed by defendants 9 to 11. 8. According to contesting defendants, Lalu Singh, sisters son of Nirpu Singh was looking after him and his affairs during his old age and was living with him. His nearest agnates Gurdu Singh. Another written statement supporting the case of defendants 1 to 5 was filed by defendants 9 to 11. 8. According to contesting defendants, Lalu Singh, sisters son of Nirpu Singh was looking after him and his affairs during his old age and was living with him. His nearest agnates Gurdu Singh. Ambo Singh and Tohal Singh were also looking after him and his affairs. Before his death, Nirpu Singh divided his properties in Khata Nos. 20, 21 and 22 amongst his aforesaid three agnates and sisters son. In this manner by such allotment Lalu Singh got l/4th share in his properties by way of oral gife. Since Nirpu Singh had parted with his properties during his life time, nothing remained to be inherited by his daughter. Sibia had, therefore, no authority to transfer the suit properties. 9. The contesting defendants claimed their uninterrupted and peaceful possession over the suit lands to the knowledge or Nirpu Singh and his daughters as well as plaintiffs, including the whole world openly and adversely and they perfected their right and title by adverse possession. They paid rent to the ex- landlord and after vesting to the State. Sibia or the plaintiffs neither came in possession over the suit lands even for a single day nor paid rent therefor and she always remained ousted. 10. Trial Court held that though the contesting defendants could not prove that Nirpu Singh had divided the suit properties In his life time, but they proved that they were in possession thereof and perfected their title by adverse possession. It was further held that Sibia, though had inherited the properties of her father, lost her title over the same and could not acquire full ownership under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Consequently, the plaintiffs, who had purchased the suit properties from Sibia in the year 1967 also could not acquire any right over the suit properties. 11. Admittedly, Nirpu Singh had no male issue and he died in the year 1932, leaving behind daughters only, so in natural course, his daughters were entitled to inherit the properties left by him. 12. In the present case, the contesting defendants claimed that Lalu Singh being sisters son of Nirpu Singh was living with him during his life time and had started paying rent for the suit lands to the then landlord. 12. In the present case, the contesting defendants claimed that Lalu Singh being sisters son of Nirpu Singh was living with him during his life time and had started paying rent for the suit lands to the then landlord. This assertion has not been substantiated by any evidence. No such rent receipt granted by the landlord has been produced by them. Their further case was that during his life time, the suit lands were orally gifted by Nirpu Singh to his nearest agnates to the extent of 3/4th and 1/4th to his sisters son, Lalu Singh, Meaning thereby that they pleaded permissive possession over the suit lands by virtue of the aforesaid gift. Alternatively, they also claimed to have ousted the daughters of Nirpu Singh after his death and acquisition of title by adverse possession. 13. In order to prove their possession they have brought on record certified copies of the extracts of Register II, wherein zamabandis (Exhibits H series) were opened, after vesting of the Zamindari in the State, in respect of the suit lands in the names of Nirpu Singh and Tejo Singh. Exhibit I has been brought on record to show that rent for the same was paid by Barho Singh, Lakho Singh, Tahal Singh and Lalu Singh from 1956 to 1961. Exhibits H to H/4 are the Zamabandis in Register II in the names of Barho Singh. Jadu Singh and Lalu Singh in respect of the suit lands, created some time in the year 1980. It is not clear as to on what basis the said Zamabandi was created in their names. Exhibits A series are the rent receipts granted by the landlord in the name of Ruplal Singh Thikedar, which do not appear to be related with the suit lands. Exhibits A/4, A/5 and A/7 are in the name of Barho Singh and Exhibits A/6, A/8 and A/9 are in the name of Lalu Singh for Sambat 1979 to 1981, 2007, 2008 and 2010. 14. Exhibit B, Registered Sale deed dated 30-12-1960 executed by Lakho Singh, husband of plaintiff No. 1, and Mostt. Jiria, plaintiff No. 2 for self and on behalf of her minor sons, Parmeshwar Singh and Ramphul Singh in favour of defendants 3 to 5 was brought on record, whereby 16-2/3 decimals of land of plot Nos. 2463 and 2479, appertaining to Khata No. 21 was transferred. 15. Jiria, plaintiff No. 2 for self and on behalf of her minor sons, Parmeshwar Singh and Ramphul Singh in favour of defendants 3 to 5 was brought on record, whereby 16-2/3 decimals of land of plot Nos. 2463 and 2479, appertaining to Khata No. 21 was transferred. 15. On behalf of plaintiffs, rent receipts granted by the then landlord to their vendor, Sibia, (Exhibits 2/D to 2/G) were brought on record, whereby rent for suit lands was paid by her for the period from Sambat 1993 to 2001. 16. In my view, the contesting defendants could have been permitted to blow both hot and cold at the same time. Once, they came out with a defence that the suit lands were orally gifted to them by Nirpu Singh, there was no question or occasion for them to claim hostile title against Nirpu Singh and his daughters in the next breath, unless they had a case that although they were put in possession of the suit lands by Nirpu Singh initially, but subsequently from a particular point of time they started claiming their adverse possession. There is no such case. 17. I find that the trial Court on the basis of materials on record, rightly came to the conclusion that the contesting defendants miserably failed to prove that during his life time Nirpu Singh had either gifted the suit properly to them orally or permitted them to occupy the same and pay rent to the then landlord. 18. Now after the death of Nirpu Singh, there is no doubt that his daughters inherited the suit properties and in their presence neither his nearest agnates nor his sisters son Lalu Singh inherited/succeeded any part of the estate, left by him. 19. In view of the fact that after vesting, Jamabandi of the suit lands was opened in Register II, in the names of Nirpu Singh and Tejo Singh, when the rent receipts for the suit lands were granted by the landlord before vesting, he had already accepted the defendants as tenants in place of Nirpu Singh and Tejo Singh and had already granted rent receipts therefor to them. The defendants did not take any step to get the said jamabandi corrected and their names be entered in place of Nirpu Singh and Tejo Singh. The defendants did not take any step to get the said jamabandi corrected and their names be entered in place of Nirpu Singh and Tejo Singh. It is also not clear as to on what basis after a long time near about the year 1980, Jamabandis were created in the names of the defendants. 20. In my opinion, only on the basis of those Jamabandis and acceptance of rent for the suit lands by the State from them, it cannot be said that the defendants perfected their title by adverse possession. 21. In view of their admission of permissive possession, defendants were estopped to claim title by adverse possession, in absence of their case of claiming hostile title from a particular date subsequently. 22. I, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment and decree. Consequently Title Suit No. 3 of 1980 is decreed. 23. In the result, this appeal is allowed, but without costs. Let the lower Court records be sent down immediately.