JUDGMENT M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. This appeal at the instance of defendants/appellants is directed against the judgment and decree dated 17th December, 1987 passed by Sub-Judge-II Gumla in Title Appeal No. 120/20 of 1980/1985. By the said judgment the Sub- Judge (hereinafter referred to as the lower appellate Court) allowed the appeal and reversed the judgment and decree dated 24.6.1980 passed by Munsif Gumla in Title Suit No. 14/1972. 2. Plaintiffs/respondents filed the aforementioned suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the property comprised within plot No. 104 under Khata No. 21 area 45 decimals situated in village Barkoili P.S. Konbir, Distt. Gumla (in short the said property). Plaintiffs case inter alia is that the suit property was once held and possessed by one Late Budhu Munda. In the revisional survey record of right Budhu Munda and his brother Etwa had been recorded in respect of the land of khata No. 1 besides other land. There was partition between the two brothers, whereby the suit lands were allotted to the share of Budhu Munda which was shown in the remarks column in the revenue record. Plaintiffs further case is that Budhu Munda surrendered his land including the suit land to the Ex-landlord by virtue of registered deed of surrender dated 2.4.1945, The landlord accepted the surrender and re-entered into the lands and thereafter settled the same with one Lalsai Sahu and in token of the said settlement Lalsai Sahu had executed a registered Kabuliyat in favour of the landlords. On 11.11.1946 and 22.12.1946 the ex-landlords granted Hukumnama to Lalsai Sahu in respect of the said lands. Lalsai Sahu came in possession of the suit land and got herself mutated in the government Sherista after vesting of the tenure in 1956. Plaintiffs further case is that on 19.2.1968 she sold the suit lands to plaintiff No. 1 through registered sale deed. Before the said transfer plaintiff No. 1 alleged to have been coming in possession of the suit land on the basis of zerpesghi deed dated 1.3.1963 executed by Most. Babi. In 1968, the defendants alleged to have been forcibly entered into the suit land and began to construct a wall which resulted in a proceeding under Section 144, Cr PC which was later on converted into a proceeding under Section 146, Cr PC. Babi. In 1968, the defendants alleged to have been forcibly entered into the suit land and began to construct a wall which resulted in a proceeding under Section 144, Cr PC which was later on converted into a proceeding under Section 146, Cr PC. It is alleged that the proceeding under Section 146, Cr PC was erroneously decided in favour of the defendants/appellants and therefore instant suit was filed for declaration of title and recovery of possession. 3. Defendants/appellants contested the suit by filing written statement taking various pleas including under valuation of the suit and also plea of resjudicata. Defendants* case is that the recorded tenant Budhu Munda had mortgaged the suit land in favour of Deotu Ohdar in 1995 Sambat Deotu Ohdar held and possessed the land and the zerpesghi was not redeemed. Budhu Munda by registered deed of surrender dated 2.4.1945 surrendered the suit land in favour of ex-landlords. Subsequently there was partition between the ex-landlords and the suit land fell into the share of Inder Ohdarand Ors.. Inder Ohdar died and his son Ganesh Ohdar, instead of redeeming zerpesghi sold the suit laid to Deoki Ohdar by registered deed of sale dated 22.11.1967 to the knowledge of the plaintiffand Ors.. Defendants further case is that Kolha Ohdar, brother of Ganesh Ohdars was away from the village and when he returned he ratified the transaction on 15.1.1968 by executing Safinama. It is alleged that plaintiffs and their men created various forged documents to oust the defendants from the suit land. 4. The trial Court on the basis of pleadings of the parties framed the following issues for consideration. (i) Is the suit maintainable? (ii) Have the plaintiff got cause of action? (iii) Is the suit barred by limitation and adverse possession? (iv) Is the suit barred by the principle of res judicate? (v) Is the suit barred by the provisions of the specific Relief Act? (vi) Had Budhua Munda mortgaged the suit land to Deotu Ohdar in 1995 Sambat vide Ext. C? (vii) Had not the ex-landlords entered upon the suit land inspite of surrender in 1995 and then suit land continued in possession of Deotu Ohdar as Zarpesghidar? (viii) Had there been partition among the ex-landlords and the suit land fell into the share of one Inder Ohdar? (ix) Had the suit land been settled to one Lalsai Sahu in the year 1946 vide Ext. 1? (viii) Had there been partition among the ex-landlords and the suit land fell into the share of one Inder Ohdar? (ix) Had the suit land been settled to one Lalsai Sahu in the year 1946 vide Ext. 1? (x) Is the sale deed dated 22.11.1967 executed by Ganesh Ohdar in favour of Deoki Ohdar (Ext. E) void and illegal? (xi) Is the sale deed dated 19.2.1968 (Ext. 7) executed by Most. Babi Kaur in favour of plaintiff No. 1 void and illegal? (xii) To what relief or reliefs, if any are the plaintiffs entitled? 5. While deciding issue Nos. (vi) and (vii), the trial Court held that the suit land was mortgaged to Deotu Ohdar in 1995, Sambat (1945) and since then the defendants continued possession of the suit land. The trial Court further decided issue No. 9 against the plaintiffs and disbelieved the settlement In favour of Lalsai Sahu. Consequently the suit was dismissed. 6. Aggrieved by the said Judgment and decree of the trial Court plaintiffs preferred appeal being Title Appeal No. 120/20 of 1980/1985. The lower appellate Court, after reappreclation of the evidence, reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and allowed the appeal in terms of the impugned judgment and decreed the suit. Hence, this Second Appeal has been filed by plaintiffs/appellants. 7. This Court admitted the appeal for hearing on the following substantial question of law. "Whether the finding of the Court below that the sale deed which was executed in favour of the appellants, defendants in the trial Court, could be said to be doubtful by the Court below when it did not take into consideration the reasoning given by the trial Court." 8. Mr. L.K. Lal. learned counsel appearing for the appellants assailed, contrary to evidence and based on extraneous consideration. Learned counsel submitted that the lower appellate Court, in a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession put the onus upon the defendants to prove his title and possession. Learned counsel submitted that admittedly the defendants were in possession as mortgagee which was never redeemed and that possession of the defendants over the suit property was finally established by the order passed by the Munsif in a proceeding under Section 146 of the Cr PC. It is contended that the lower appellate Court erroneously reversed the finding without considering oral evidence. 9. Mr. It is contended that the lower appellate Court erroneously reversed the finding without considering oral evidence. 9. Mr. P.K. Prasad, learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that the claim of the defendants is based on the mortgage which was unregistered and there is no evidence of possession in favour of the defendants. Learned counsel submitted that the lower appellate Court while disbelieving the title of the defendants has given full reasons after reappreciation of the entire evidence. 10. The trial Court while deciding issue No. 6 regarding mortgage created by Budhu Munda In favour of Deotu Ohdar as alleged by the defendants has gone through the documentary evidence as also oral evidence adduced by the parties and also expert report. The trial Court considered the letters Exts. A and B written by the plaintiffs wherein defendants possession as mortgagee was admitted. 11. Be that as it may, admittedly sale deed in respect of the suit land was executed in favour of the defendants in 1967. The trial Court framed a separate issue as to whether sale deed dated 22.11.1967 executed by Ganesh Ohdar in favour of Deotu Ohdar is void and illegal. The trial Court after considering the evidence came to the conclusion that sale deed executed in favour of Deotu Ohdar is legal and valid. However, the appellate Court reversed the said finding while considering the question whether plaintiffs/appellants have got title over the suit land and they are entitled to recovery of possession. The relevant portion of the finding recorded by the trial Court reads as under : "The story of zarpesgi to Deotu Ohdar, a defendant, by Budhu Munda of the suit land has almost been clearly admitted by the plaintiff No. 1, Paras Ram Ohdar, who figures a PW 9 in this suit. He admits that the letters (Exts. A and B) have been written by him. The letter dated 20.3.1968, that it just after one month he purchased the suit land from Smt. Babi Kuer vide Ext. 7, clearly shows the admission of plaintiff No. 1 that Deotu has simply taken Zarpesgi, but he has purchased the suit land from Babi in his favour. Narrating past history, he says that Angand had earlier registered a deed in favour of the husband of Babi, Lalsai Sahu, probably by this registered deed he means to indicate Patta Qabullat dated 11.11.1946 marked as Ext. Narrating past history, he says that Angand had earlier registered a deed in favour of the husband of Babi, Lalsai Sahu, probably by this registered deed he means to indicate Patta Qabullat dated 11.11.1946 marked as Ext. 9, because of the fact that there is no other-of the suit land except this one and also that Angand Ohdar (PW 3) says that the Hukumnama (Ext. 1) was granted in favour of Lalsai Sahu only after he executed and registered the deed of qubullat, Ext. 9. Angand Ohdar is the scribe of said Hukumnama. Ext. 1 and therefore, it is clear that it as Angand Ohdar, one of the landlords, who was much interested to create title over the suit land and other lands of khata No. 21 in favour of his own sisters husband, Lalsai Sahu. His sister Babi remained loyal to her brother and at the instance of her brother she executed the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff No. 1 Babi appears to have come to depose in this suit as PW 2 at the instance of her brother. It may be mentioned here that Angands father Alamchan alias Tanku had two brothers, one was Achraj and the other was Deotu. The plaintiffs are the sons of Achraj; and the defendant are Deotu himself, his wife Deoki and their sons. Besides other facts discussed above, it is clear from Ext. B, the letter, that the plaintiff Paras Ram Ohdar admits that the suit land was taken in zarpesgi by Deotu Ohdar. It was the recorded raiyat, Budhua only who was competent to give the suit land in zarpesgi to Deotu Ohdar. Any such zarpesgi must have been taken by Deotu, also one of the ex-landlords, from Budhua prior to the execution of the deed of surrender, Ext. 8, in the year 1945. It is clear from the admission of the plaintiff himself that the suit land was mortgaged to Deotu Ohdar before 1945. Attempt has been made by the plaintiffs to bypass this admission. PW 9, says that he was informed from his brother, plaintiff No. 2, that Deotu is taking about Zarpesgi right. But the letter Ext. B clearly shows that Paras Ram personally knew about zarpesgi in favour of Deotu and warns the addressee Laharu Baraik not to help Deotu to construct the wall over the Tanr (the suit land). PW 9, says that he was informed from his brother, plaintiff No. 2, that Deotu is taking about Zarpesgi right. But the letter Ext. B clearly shows that Paras Ram personally knew about zarpesgi in favour of Deotu and warns the addressee Laharu Baraik not to help Deotu to construct the wall over the Tanr (the suit land). The admission is clear ,cut, and no other meaning can be given to it." 12. The trial Court further analysed the entire evidence on the question of possession and came to a finding that the ex-landlord did not enter upon the suit land inspite of surrender in the year 1945 made by Budhu Munda and the suit land continued to remain in possession of Deotu Ohdar since the date he took the land in zarpesgi from Budhu Munda. The possession of Deotu Ohdar and then defendants was also affirmed by the finding recorded by the Munsif in a proceeding under Section 146 of the Cr PC. Admittedly, the suit land was thereafter sold and transferred in favour of Deotu Ohdar by registered deed of sale dated 22.11.1967 and in this way defendants were in continued possession of the suit land. On the other hand, plaintiffs alleged to have acquired interest in the suit land on the basis of sale deed executed by Most. Babi on 19.2.1968. In other words, the plaintiffs acquired interest in the property by virtue of sale deed of 1968 whereas defendants acquired absolute title by virtue of sale deed executed in 1967. 13. The appellate Court while reversing the finding of the trial Court and declaring the sale deed of the defendants as doubtful has not met the reasoning given by the trial court. In my opinion, in view of the admission made by the plaintiffs regarding possession of Deotu Ohdar as mortgagee created by Budhu Munda before 1945 and possession of Deotu Ohdar and the defendants having been confirmed not only by the admission made by the plaintiffs but also finding recorded by the Munsif in a proceeding under Section 146 of the Cr PC, the reversal of finding of the trial Court by the appellate Court is perverse in law and based on no evidence. The appellate Court in fact has not correctly appreciated the entire evidence adduced by the parties for coming to a right conclusion. The appellate Court in fact has not correctly appreciated the entire evidence adduced by the parties for coming to a right conclusion. The judgment and decree of the appellate Court therefore can not be sustained in law. 14. For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate court is set aside and that of the trial Court is restored.