Judgment S.N.Pathak, J. 1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13-1-88 passed by 1st Additional District Judge, Bhagalpur, in Title Appeal No. 57 of 1978 partly allowing and partly dismissing the appeal against the judgment of the trial Court dated 9-5-78 rendered in Title Suit No. 23/66. The plaintiff of the aforesaid title suit had filed the appeal before the District Judge and the same plaintiff prereferred this appeal before this Court. The trial Court had allowed and decreed the plaintiffs claim over plot Nos. 323 and 324 for an area of 84 decimals and 48 decimals respectively. The appellate Court extended this claim of the plaintiff-appellant to an area of 11 decimals of plot No. 325. It was thus that the first appellate Court partly allowed the appeal and partly dismissed the same. 2. The case of the plaintiff-appellant in the lower Court was that Munshi Gorhi owned and possessed 5.84 decimals of land over plot Nos. 322, 323, 324 and 325. He sold 1.43 decimals of plot No. 323 which had atotal area of 2.78 acres to Deoki Mandal by a sale-deed dated 15-6-27 (Ext. 3A). Subsequently Deoki Mandal sold this land to the appellant by a sale-deed dated 16-6-59 (Ext. 3) Munsif Gorhi had also mortgaged 1.01 acres of plot No. 323 and 1.52 and 1/2 of plot No. 325 to one Jagarnath, father-in-law of original defendant No. 1 Biro Mandal (since deceased and substituted by his heirs), who had attested the sale-deed of the plaintiff of the year 1959 (Ext. E dated 8-6-31). In the year 1935 Munshi Gorhi sold, 1.41 acres of land out of plot Nos. 323 and 325. One Puran Gorhi, descendant of Munshi Gorhi, sold on 6-5-61 by a registered deed plot Nos. 322 and 324 in their entire area to plaintiff (Ext. 3D) and the plaintiff, accordingly, came in possession. However, this led to a dispute between the parties culminating into a proceeding under Secs. 144 and 145 Cr. P.C. which was decided against the plaintiff-appellant. Emboldened by this decision, the plaintiff-appellant was dispossessed from the suit land having an area of 71 decimals as described in Schedule II of the plaint. 3. Written statement was filed by the descendant of Biro Mandal separately and then another written statement was filed by Dukhi Mandal and Ram Bilash Sao (defendant Nos. Emboldened by this decision, the plaintiff-appellant was dispossessed from the suit land having an area of 71 decimals as described in Schedule II of the plaint. 3. Written statement was filed by the descendant of Biro Mandal separately and then another written statement was filed by Dukhi Mandal and Ram Bilash Sao (defendant Nos. 2 and 3) and Manik Sao (defendant No. 5) jointly. However, the cases built up by W.S. of the aforesaid defendants was to the effect that, of course, Munshi Gorhi was possessed of plot No. 322 having a total area of 23 decimals, plot No. 323 having a total area of 2.78 acres, plot No. 324 having a total area of 48 decimals, plot No. 325 having a total area of 2.35 acres (total 5.84 acres). All these plots were amalgamated and formed one block at the spot. So, when Munshi Gorhi sold 1.43 acres out of this amalgamated land to Deoki Mandal, the boundary covered the entire area of plot No, 324 (48 decimals), 11 decimals of plot No. 325 and 84 decimals of plot No. 323, although the plot Nos. 324 and 325 were not mentioned in the sale-deed of Deoki Mandal, Subsequently, the same land was sold to the plaintiff by Deoki Mandal, Thereafter, Biro Mandal purchased the entire area of 2.53 and half decimals of the aforesaid amalgamated land which was in mortgage of Jagarnath Mandal measuring 1.01 acres of plot No. 323 and 1.52 and half acres of plot No. 3425. However, in the year 1935 Munshi Gorhi had sold 1.41 acres of the amalgamated land indicating plot No. 323 and plot No. 325. Thus, nothing had remained for Puran Gorhi, descendant of Munsif Gorhi to sell and, therefore, the sale-deed of the plaintiff of the year 1961 was invalid and illegal and the plaintiff came in possession of no land and, therefore, the proceeding u/s. 145 Cr. P.C. was rightly decided against the plaintiffs-appellant 4. Both the lower Courts by calculating the areas sold by Munshi Gorhi to Biro Mandal or Manik Sah held that Munshi Gorhi had sold away his entire land during his life time and, therefore, nothing was left for Puran Gorhi nor he was in possession of any piece of land left by his ancestor to sell to the plaintiff. Both the lower Courts by calculating the areas sold by Munshi Gorhi to Biro Mandal or Manik Sah held that Munshi Gorhi had sold away his entire land during his life time and, therefore, nothing was left for Puran Gorhi nor he was in possession of any piece of land left by his ancestor to sell to the plaintiff. Hence, the sale-deed of the year 1961 obtained by the plaintiff was invalid and illegal and he had obtained nothing except the bag of winds. However, on the admitted case of defendant-respondents themselves the appellate Court allowed the claim of the plaintiff-appellant over an area of 1.43 acres comprised of plot Nos. 323, 324 and 325 as mentioned in the last but the one paragraph of the lower appellate Court judgment and the 1st paragraph of this judgment. 5. Before me, it was submitted by the appellants lawyer that both the Courts below committed errors in calculating the areas sold by Munshi Gorhi to Biro Mandal or Manik Sah and thus they failed to approach the case in its right perspective and that resulted in the adverse judgment against the plaintiff-appellant. On perusal of the plaint and the W.S. filed by two sets of defendants, one represented by heirs of Biro Mandal and the other represented by defendant Nos. 2, 3 and 5, it transpired unmistakably that Munshi Gorhi was the owner of plot Nos. 322, 323, 324, 325 having a total area of 23 decimals, 2.78, 0.48, 2.35 acres respectively, as per the Khaitan (Ext. C). As per the cases of the parties as stated above, Munshi Gorhi has divested himself of an area of 1.43 acres plus 2.53 and half acres and 1.41 acres by different sale-deeds created upto the year 1937. Making a calculation of the areas of land sold by Munshi Gorhi, I find that out of 5.84 acres of land sold by Munshi Gorhi, 47 decimals of land would still be behind by Munshi Gorhi to be inherited by his descendants. In this connection, the case ofthe defendant-respondents on a common platform was that in the sale-deed of defendants there was of course, omission of plot Nos. 322 and 324, but as a matter of fact, the sale-deeds as per the boundary included parts of plot Nos. In this connection, the case ofthe defendant-respondents on a common platform was that in the sale-deed of defendants there was of course, omission of plot Nos. 322 and 324, but as a matter of fact, the sale-deeds as per the boundary included parts of plot Nos. 322 and 324 as well because all the confusion was created by amalgamation of all the plots sold by Munshi Gorhi. Similarly, even though the sale-deed of Deoki Mandal and subsequently of plaintiff had mentioned plot No. 323 only, but as a matter of fact, parts of plot Nos. 324 and 325 were also included in the area sold to Deoki Mandal and the plaintiff and the boundary indicated the same fact at the spot. Perhaps, the two Courts below, while calculating the areas of lands sold by Munshi Gorhi to the parties came to an error because of the reference of the plot sold in bighas as compared to the acres. Whatever may be the position, the calculation done by the Courts below of course, was errnoneous. However, even though a correct calculation is made of the areas sold by Munshi Gorhi, only 47 decimals were left behind by him and not 71 decimals as pleaded in the plaint by the plaintiff-appellant. Perhaps the plaintiff-appellant and defendant No. 4 Puran Gorhi both took advantage of the omission of plot No, 322 and plot No. 324 in the sale-deeds in favour of the defendant-respondents ancestor. So, attempt was made toacquire bythe plaintiff through Puran Gorhi the land comprised in an area of 71 decimals by the sale-deed in the year 1961 and this had led to the dispute. I find further that the lower Court discussed the whole evidence, oral and the documentary regarding possession and came to the conclusion that Puran Gorhi was not in possession of any portion of land sold by Munshi Gorhi. The appellate Court also held like the same and it rather went further by holding that defendant-respondents were in possession of an excess area than what was sold to them. In this connection, it is relevant to mention here that Biro Mandal had sold 1.01 acres to a particular school out of the land of 2.53 and half acres sold to him. In this connection, it is relevant to mention here that Biro Mandal had sold 1.01 acres to a particular school out of the land of 2.53 and half acres sold to him. The Pleader Commissioner was also appointed to go to the spot who reported that all the plots owned by Munsif Gorhi at the spot were in one block. So, the circumstances of the case indicated that although the defendant-respondents had not purchased plot No. 322 or 324 through the sale-deeds, still they were in possession of parts of plot No. 322 and 323 and they had conceded the entire area of plot No. 324 to be in possession of the plaintiff and nothing of plot No. 322 and 84 decimals of plot No. 323 and 11 decimals of plot No. 325. Thus, the defendant-respondents were claiming that entire area of plot No. 322 and parts of total area of plot Nos. 323 and 325 were in their possession on account of boundary mentioned in the sale-deeds. The findings of the Courts below regarding the possession of the defendant-respondents indicated that the defendants were in possession of area excess of what they had purchased. This fact is confirmed by the fact that Puran Gorhi sought to execute a sale-deed over an area of land which was not at all left by his ancestor Munshi Gorhi. So, it cannot be supposed that Puran Gorhi was in possession of an area of land which was not left by his ancestor. But when still Puran Gorhi chose to sell this piece of land that shows that, perhaps, he was not in possession of the area of land which he had sought to sell. From this, it would follow that he would not be expected to be in possession of even 47 decimals of land which was, of course, left by Munshi Gorhi as per the calculation of the area sold to the parties as per their pleadings. Therefore, the findings of the two Courts below that Puran Gorhi was not in possession of any piece of land left by his ancestor does not appear to be unwarranted. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this finding of fact of the two Courts below is almost conclusive and this Court is not under any obligation to interfere with the same. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this finding of fact of the two Courts below is almost conclusive and this Court is not under any obligation to interfere with the same. 6. Now, the question is whether the plaintiff who had obtained a sale-deed in his favour by Puran Gorhi would be entitled to recovery of possession at least 47 decimals of land left by Munshi Gorhi. In this connection, although there is no pleading of the defendant-respondents regarding adverse possession still the moot point is whether the vendor of the plaintiff-appellant Puran Gorhi (defendant No. 4 of the suit), who neither appeared in the suit nor in this appeal was in possession of the 47 decimals of land at the time when he sold it to the plaintiff. As I have already stated above, the two Courts below held that Puran Gorhi was not in possession of any piece of land. So, this evidence will constitute an element of adverse possession because the last sale-deed executed by Munshi Gorhi or his descendants was in the year 1937 when the parties had already come in possession of the land sold to them as per the concerned sale-deeds. So, I am of the opinion that when the plaintiff purchased his land from Puran Gorhi in the year 1961, perhaps, neither Puran Garhi nor the plaintiff was in the know of things as to what one was selling or what the other was purchasing. It is also not certain whether the plaintiff had, of course, come in possession of the land which he had purchased by sale-deed of the year 1961. Both the Courts held not the basis of evidence that the plaintiff had not proved that he was dispossessed in the manner as alleged. So, it appears that the plaintiff had, of course, not come in possession of the land which he claimed to have purchased through the sale-deed of the year 1961. Both the Courts held not the basis of evidence that the plaintiff had not proved that he was dispossessed in the manner as alleged. So, it appears that the plaintiff had, of course, not come in possession of the land which he claimed to have purchased through the sale-deed of the year 1961. So, of course, it transpires that the plaintiff purchased a bag of winds and he rather purchased a speculation for which he alone would be responsible and so he would be free to pursue his vendor Puran Gorhi in any future litigation regarding the alleged sale and purchase and so far the concerned suit is concerned, as I have already stated above, since Puran Gorhi did not appear to be in possession of the land which he had sold to the plaintiff, the latter in turn also did not come in possession of the land which he had purchased. As I have already said above, since the defendant-respondents were found to be in possession of the suit land, they would be deemed to be adverse possession and, so, the plaintiff would not be acquiring any valid title over the land which he had purchased. So, of course, he was not entitled to seek any recovery of possession. 7. The appellate Court already allowed the plaintiffs claim over na area of 1.43 acres of land as mentioned above and, therefore, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff is not entitled to any further relief. 8. In the result, this appeal is dismissed and the judgment of the appellate Court is affirmed.