Judgment M. Y. Eqbal, J.-This appeal by the defendants-appellants under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is' directed against the judgment dated 16.10.2001 passed in First Appeal No. 112 of 1986(R) whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Subordinate Judge, Hazaribagh in Title Suit No. 3 of 1980. 2. The plaintiffs-respondents filed the aforementioned Title Suit No. 3 of 1980 against the defendants-appellants for declaration of title and confirmation of possession and in the alternative, for recovery of possession of the suit lands bearing Khata Nos. 20, 21 and 22 of Village Bardewa, P.S.-Barhi, District-Hazaribagh. The plaintiffs' case inter alia is that one Barkhataur Singh was the common ancestor of the parties who had two sons Bhikhari Singh and Narain Singh. Bhikhari Singh died leaving behind five sons, namely Chohan Singh, Chinu Singh, Gopal Singh, Jaggu Singh and Jitu Singh. Narain Singh had a son-Mithu Singh who had two sons namely Nirpu Singh and Tejo Singh and a daughter who was married with one Rupu Singh. Tejo Singh died issueless. Nirpu Singh had three daughters, namely Khemni, Sibia and Rukni. Admittedly, the plaintiffs Clnd defendants are the descendants of Bhikhari Singh. Defendant Nos. 3 to 5 are the sons of Lalu Singh. 3. Admittedly the suit land comprised within Khata No. 20 was recorded in the name of Nirpu Singh whereas land of Khata No. 21 was jointly recorded in the name of Nirpu Singh and Tejo Singh. So far land of Khata No. 22 is concerned, it was recorded in the name of Nirpu Singh and Tejo Singh having one share and, Bhawani Singh, son of Gyan Singh having one share. The plaintiffs' case is that Most. Sibia, daughter of Nirpu Singh, sold Schedule-B properties to the plaintiffs and after purchasing the said suit land, the plaintiffs applied for mutation before the Anchal Adhikari. But because of the objection raised, the Anchal Adhikari directed the parties to get their disputes settled through Civil Court. The plaintiffs-respondents pleaded that after Tejo Singh died issueless, Nirpu Singh became the sole owner of the suit land. He had three daughters. One of the daughters, Khemni, predeceased him and the second daughter Rukni also died. After their death, Sibia acquired absolute title and possession over the suit land from whom the plaintiffs purchased the suit land by registered sale deed dated 23.10.1967. He had three daughters. One of the daughters, Khemni, predeceased him and the second daughter Rukni also died. After their death, Sibia acquired absolute title and possession over the suit land from whom the plaintiffs purchased the suit land by registered sale deed dated 23.10.1967. 4. The defendants' case, on the other hand, is that the sister's son of Nirpu Singh, namely Lalu Singh, was looking after Nirpu Singh during his old age and was living with him. The nearest agnates of Nirpu Singh namely, Guardu Singh, Ambo Singh and. Tahal Singh were also looking after him and his properties. According to the defendants, Nirpu Singh before his death divided the suit land amongst his three agnates and sister's son Lalu Singh. Defendants' further case is that Lalu Singh got 1/4th share in the properties of Nirpu Singh, which was given to him by way of oral gift. The defendants therefore made out a case that since Nirpu Singh had parted with his properties during his lifetime, nothing remained to be inherited by his daughter Sibia. Consequently, Sibia had no right to transfer the suit properties in favour of the plaintiffs. The defendants further made out a case that they have been coming in uninterrupted and peaceful possession of the suit land to the knowledge of Nirpu Singh and his daughter Sibia openly and adversely and thereby perfected their title by adverse possession. 5. The trial Court recorded a finding that the defendants perfected their title by adverse possession and Most. Sibia did not acquire full ownership over the suit land. The First Appellate" Court after' re-appreciating the entire evidence, both oral an~ documentary, came to a finding that the defendants cannot be 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, then there was no question or occasion for them to claim their title against the Nirpu Singh and his daughter Sibia by adverse possession. Consequently, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was set aside. 6. I have heard Mr. Rajan Raj, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Consequently, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was set aside. 6. I have heard Mr. Rajan Raj, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Learned counsel for the appellants assailed the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge mainly on the ground that the appellate Court failed to consider Ext.-B, which is the entries regarding a sale deed in the original register of the Registration Office, from which it will appear that plaintiff Lakho Singh and Most. Jiriya had executed sale deed in favour of some of the defendants with respect to the portion of the suit land. Learned counsel further submitted the learned Single Judge also failed to consider the documentary evidence particularly Exts.-E-series and also Ext.-I which is the certified copy of Register-II showing mutation of the land in favour of the defendants. 7. The trial Court while deciding the question of title and possession concluded the finding in para 18 of the judgment which reads as under:- "18. Considering the facts and circumstances and discussion made above I find and hold that though defendants could not prove that Nirpu Singh had divided the properties in his lifetime but they have successfully proved that they were in possession of the properties alongwith plaintiffs and had perfected their title by Law of Adverse Possession and Sibia though had inherited the properties of her father but lost her title over the same and could not acquire full ownership as envisaged u/s 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The. plaintiffs therefore are not entitled to a decree as prayed for. This answers issue nos. iii, iv, v and vi" 8. Undisputedly, after the death of Tejo Singh, Nirpu Singh became the sole owner of the suit land and after his death Mst. Sibia, being the only surviving daughter, inherited the property left by Nirpu Singh. The contesting defendants have not disputed "the title of Nirpu Singh but their case is that Nirpu Singh was being looked after by them and Nirpu Singh, during his lifetime, divided his property amongst his agnates and on the basis of that division they have been coming in possession of the suit land. On the other hand, their further case. is that Lallu Singh got a portion of the suit property by way of oral gift. On the other hand, their further case. is that Lallu Singh got a portion of the suit property by way of oral gift. The trial Court rightly disbelieved the case of the defendants with regard to division of the property by Nirpu Singh and transfer of the suit land in favour of the defendants by way of oral gift. On the basis of that findings the trial Court has committed serious illegality in holding that the defendants perfected their title by adverse possession. The learned Single Judge has rightly held that the contesting defendants could not have been permitted to blow both hot and cold at the same time. When the defendants came out with a case that the suit lands were orally gifted to them by Nirpu Singh, they could' not have claimed hostile title against Nirpu Singh and his daughter. Both the ingredients of claiming title by adverse possession has not been sufficiently proved by the defendants, the trial court erroneously held that the defendants perfected their title by adverse possession. 9. In the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence adduced by the parties, we are of the definite view that the findings recorded by the trial Court is absolutely erroneous in law and the same has been rightly set aside by the learned Single Judge. 10. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed. Jaya Roy, J.-I agree.