MUNGESHWAR SAHOO, J.:–The plaintiffs have filed this First Appeal against the Judgment and Decree dated 30.04.1983 passed by the learned Addl. Sub Judge II, Aurangabad in Title suit No.39 of 1980 / 72 of 1982 whereby the learned Court below dismissed the plaintiff’s suit. 2. The plaintiffs appellants filed the aforesaid suit for declaration that the suit land is raiyi kast land of the plaintiffs and prayed for confirmation of possession and injunction. 3. The plaintiffs claimed the aforesaid relief alleging that Rambaran Mahto had two sons, namely, Bandhu Mahto and Kothai Mahto. After death of Rambaran, his two sons partitioned the property. Both the brothers died before cadastral survey. Bandhu Mahto died leaving behind his only son Nathuni Mahto whose name was recorded with respect to the property comprised within Khata No.94 and 95. Kothai Mahto died leaving behind Doman Mahto and Haru Mahto who were recorded with respect to the properties of other khatas allotted to Kothai Mahto. Doman Mahto also died leaving behind his three sons, Bakhori Mahto, Fagu Mahto and Kashinath Mahto. Haru Mahto died leaving behind his only son Bal Govind Mahto. All of them died without male issue except Kashinath Mahto. Kashinath Mahto died leaving behind his three sons Bal Kishun Mahto, plaintiff No.1, Raghunandan Mahto, plaintiff No.2 and Radhamohan Mahto, plaintiff No.3. 4. The further case is that son of Bandhu Mahto, namely, Nathuni Mahto died in the year 1918 leaving behind his only widow, Anchhi Devi, who became the owner of the property of her husband. Kashinath Mahto, the father of the plaintiff was looking after the property of Anchhi Devi. Balkishun Mahto used to live with Anchhi Devi. The name of Anchhi was entered in the Government Shresta and she was paying rent. After the death of Anchhi Devi, the name of plaintiff No.1 is entered in the cane grower society. Accordingly, the plaintiffs became the owner of the property as reversioner and came in possession. 5. The further case of the plaintiff is that the father of defendant No.1, Chulhan Mahto, who had no relation with Kashinath Mahto and who was looking after the cultivation work of Anchhi Devi got a bogus sale deed executed on 22.06.1919 from Anchhi Devi wrongly making recitals that he is gotia of Anchhi. 5. The further case of the plaintiff is that the father of defendant No.1, Chulhan Mahto, who had no relation with Kashinath Mahto and who was looking after the cultivation work of Anchhi Devi got a bogus sale deed executed on 22.06.1919 from Anchhi Devi wrongly making recitals that he is gotia of Anchhi. The sale deed was neither executed by Anchhi nor she put her thumb impression nor Chulhan Mahto came in possession of the property pursuant to the sale deed. Plaintiff No.1 and Anchhi Devi had filed an application for commutation of rent being case No.1984 of 47-48 with respect to the land of khata No.95. Since there was no objection, the rent was commuted in the name of Anchhi Devi and plaintiff No.1. The application filed by Chulhan Mahto under Section 26 of Bihar Tenancy Act was rejected by S.D.O. in 1947. Anchhi Devi died in the year 1964 leaving behind nearest reversioner Kashinath Mahto who came in possession and became the absolute owner. On his direction, plaintiff No.1 got his name mutated. Further Kashinath Mahto gifted ten decimal of land in plot No.861 and nine decimal of land in plot No.3798 to Sheo Govind Pandey who performed Shradh of Anchhi Devi by registered gift deed. The donee got his name mutated. Plaintiff No.1 also sold 30 feet x 10 feet land of plot No.848 / 4299 of khata No.95 to Deomani Kuer who is in possession of the purchased land. Plaintiff also sold six decimal of land of plot No.3608 to Bhura Mahto and Kuldeep Mahto who are in possession of their purchased land. Plaintiff No.1 also sold nine decimal of plot No.3602 to Ram Kishun Mahto who is in possession of that land. Some lands of plot No.923 were acquired by Canal Department and notice was issued to plaintiff No.1. The plaintiff No.1 compromised the case with Bali Mahto. Plaintiff also got executed a Bazidawa by Lal Mohan Singh with respect to plot No.3752 which was wrongly entered in his name. Even during life time of Kashinath, name of plaintiff No.1 was entered in parcha and after his death also, his name continued in revisional parcha. His father died in 1973. Plaintiff No.1 has also constructed his double storied building on plot No.3590. He inducted tenant in the house on plot No.3583. Even during life time of Kashinath, name of plaintiff No.1 was entered in parcha and after his death also, his name continued in revisional parcha. His father died in 1973. Plaintiff No.1 has also constructed his double storied building on plot No.3590. He inducted tenant in the house on plot No.3583. In the year 1979, plaintiffs applied for mutation in place of Anchhi Devi vide case No.8 of 79-80. but the defendants threatens to disposses the plaintiff. Hence, the suit was filed. 6. The defendants filed contesting written statement. Besides taking various ornamental please, mainly the defendants contended that the genealogy given by the plaintiff is false and incorrect. According to the defendant, the correct genealogy is that Gouri Mahto had two sons, Jodhi Mahto and Bandhu Mahto. Chulhan Mahto was the only son of Jodhi Mahto and Nathuni Mahto was the only son of Bandhu Mahto. Defendant No.1 is son of Chulhan and Nathuni died leaving his widow Mott. Anchhi Devi, therefore, the plaintiffs in no way related with the genealogy of the defendant nor the plaintiff are nearest reversioner. In fact Chulhan Mahto was the reversioner and moreover for legal necessity, Anchhi Devi has sold the suit land to Chulhan Mahto by registered sale deed dated 03.07.1919. In the mutation case, the plaintiffs have given a different genealogical table which does not tally at all with the genealogical table given in the plaint. In the genealogy given by the plaintiff in the mutation case, it is shown that Bandhu Mahto had three daughters and one son Nathuni. The daughter’s son has also been disclosed and likewise the daughters of Bakhori Mahto has also been shown but in the genealogy given in the plaint, the daughters of Bandhu Mahto and Bakhori Mahto has not been shown. 7. The further case of the defendant is that Kashinath Mahto was not the nearest reversioner of Anchhi Devi. After death of Nathuni in the year 1918, Anchhi Devi became the limited owner of the property. Kashinath Mahto was not looking after the affairs of Anchhi Devi. Actually name of Anchhi Devi was recorded in landlord?s shresta and she was paying the rent. Balkishun Mahto, the plaintiff No.1 was very wise and clever man, therefore, the members of koiri community authorized him to look after the affairs of entire koiri community but he got his name entered in cane grower cooperative society. Actually name of Anchhi Devi was recorded in landlord?s shresta and she was paying the rent. Balkishun Mahto, the plaintiff No.1 was very wise and clever man, therefore, the members of koiri community authorized him to look after the affairs of entire koiri community but he got his name entered in cane grower cooperative society. Because Anchhi Devi was in need of money for paying the antecedent debt to creditors and for meeting the legal necessity, she sold the suit land to Chulhan Mahto for Rs.250/-. The sale deed was registered on 3rd July, 1919. All other allegations made by the plaintiff were denied. However, they admitted that Anchhi Devi died in 1964 and since the father of defendant No.1 died prior to Anchhi Devi, the defendant No.1 became the owner of the property of Anchhi Devi and accordingly he and his sons are coming in possession. 8. The further case of the defendant is that the plaintiff No.1 had filed title suit against Kariman Mahto for eviction wherein a different case had been pleaded, therefore, Kariman is also a necessary party. The property were donated by defendant No.1 orally to Sheo Govind Pandey which was confirmed by a registered document. So far the allegation of selling land by plaintiff is concerned, the defendants denied the sale and the possession of the purchasers. The compensation money was paid to defendant No.1. The plaintiffs have obtained the land of plot No.3590 from defendant No.1 by oral exchange of plot No.1038 about ten years ago and the plaintiffs have constructed house over it. Firangi Mahto had gifted plot No.4047 to Bhudan Yagn Committee in the year 1955 and the land was settled to one Chulhan Ram in the year 1962. 9. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues :— (i) Is the suit as framed maintainable? (ii) Have the plaintiffs got valid cause of action to bring the suit? (iii) Is the suit barred by law of limitation, estoppel, waiver and acquiescence? (iv) Is the suit bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of the parties? (v) Is the suit barred u/s 34 of the Specific Relief Act and u/s 4 (b) and (c) of Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation of Holding Act? (iii) Is the suit barred by law of limitation, estoppel, waiver and acquiescence? (iv) Is the suit bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of the parties? (v) Is the suit barred u/s 34 of the Specific Relief Act and u/s 4 (b) and (c) of Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation of Holding Act? (vi) Has the suit property being properly valued for the purpose of Court fee and are the plaintiffs liable to pay the ad volerum Court fee? (vii) Where the suit land have been coming in possession of plaintiff and where the suit land occupancy kast land of the plaintiff? (viii) Where the title and possession over the suit land have been perfected by adverse possession also? (ix) Where the claim of the defendant with respect to title and possession over the suit land is tenable in law as well as fact? (x) Where the defendants are fit to be permanently from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land? (xi) Whether the genealogical table given by the plaintiff is correct? (xii) To what relief or reliefs are the plaintiffs entitled? 10. The trial Court recorded a finding that plaintiff no.2 and 3 virtually had no concern at all with the suit land. Their possession and title does not stand established, even though for the purpose of the suit, they have been made party. Previous deposition and documents as well as evidence go to show that Balkishun was alone in possession and he was separate from his brothers and there was no joint family where Balkishun Mahto was karta. The trial Court also while deciding Issue No.11 held that the plaintiffs failed to prove the genealogy given in the plaint and when it is not proved, the plaintiff cannot stand as the next reversioner of Nathuni Mahto and Anchhi Devi. Accordingly, the trial Court dismissed the plaintiff’s suit. 11. The learned senior counsel, Mr. Dhrub Narayan, for the appellant submitted that the trial Court did not properly appreciate the evidences and in fact decided the case wrongly. The question was as to whether the plaintiffs are the reversioner of Nathuni Mahto or not. So far the genealogy considered by the trial Court is concerned, both the genealogy is same. In the plaint, it has been shown that Rambaran Mahto had two sons only. The question was as to whether the plaintiffs are the reversioner of Nathuni Mahto or not. So far the genealogy considered by the trial Court is concerned, both the genealogy is same. In the plaint, it has been shown that Rambaran Mahto had two sons only. Anchhi Devi represents the branch of Bandhu Mahto whereas the plaintiff represents the branch of Kothai Mahto. In the genealogy given in mutation proceeding also, the same thing has been mentioned. The only difference is in the genealogy filed in the mutation proceeding, three daughters of Bandhu Mahto and also of Bakhouri Mahto have been mentioned. In other words, in the mutation proceeding, larger branch has been shown but in none of the genealogical table, the name of defendants finds place. Since the property in dispute belong to Nathuni Mahto, it will go to the widow and admittedly, three daughters of Bandhu Mahto were not the heirs of Nathuni Mahto being the sisters, the property devolves on Anchhi Devi after death of Nathuni in 1918. In such circumstances, for the purpose of suit, the plaintiff did not mention the names of the three sisters of Nathuni. Likewise, the three daughters of Bakhouri Mahto will not inherit the property as on the death of Nathuni, Kashinath was the nearest agnate and Bakhouri had pre-deceased. Therefore, their names were also not disclosed but that does not mean that the genealogy was wrong. The genealogical table mentioned in the plaint is for the purpose of showing the relationship of plaintiff with Nathuni and Anchhi Devi and nothing else. Therefore, the genealogy given in the plaint is limited for that purpose only, but the Court below wrongly recorded the finding that the genealogy is different genealogy and disbelieved the case of plaintiff. 12. The learned senior counsel further submitted that the widow of Nathuni, namely, Anchhi Devi was the limited owner, therefore, she had no right to transfer at all the suit property in the year 1919 but she executed the registered sale deed which will never confer title on the defendant and moreover when the defendant No.1 applied under Section 26 of Bihar Tenancy Act, objection was filed by Anchhi Devi in the year 1947 itself contending inter alia that she never executed any sale deed. In spite of this denial of Anchhi Devi and in spite of the fact that the application filed by defendant No.1 was rejected, the defendant never prayed for any relief on the basis of registered sale deed during the life time of Anchhi Devi. For the first time, in the defence, this plea has been taken by the defendant. According to the learned counsel, the sale deed was nullity and it was never confirmed after coming into force of Hindu Succession Act, as such it will not come in the way of reversioner’s right to inherit the property of Anchhi Devi. 13. The learned counsel further submitted that in denial of the genealogy of the plaintiff, the defendants have given separate genealogy but no reliable evidence has been adduced by the defendant. The trial Court has also not recorded any finding in favour of the defendant. The only finding recorded by the Court below is that plaintiff failed to prove the genealogy. The finding of the trial Court on this question is thus erroneous. 14. The learned counsel further submitted that although the plaintiff claimed adverse possession but since the plaintiffs are claiming title on the property as reversioner, the claim of title by adverse possession is not maintainable, as such the appellants are not pressing acquisition of title by adverse possession. So far possession is concerned, the plaintiff have not only produced oral evidences but also documentary evidences in support of their possession but the Court below wrongly held that the plaintiff No.2 and 3 were separate and have got no concern with the suit, although it was not the case of the defendant. The Court below has not appreciated the evidences in their right perspective. On these grounds, the learned counsel submitted that the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court are liable to be set aside and the plaintiff’s suit be decreed. 15. On the other hand, the learned counsel, Mr. Vidyasagar, for the respondent submitted that the Court below has rightly considered the oral as well as documentary evidences, i.e., exhibit ‘C’, ‘H’ and ‘G’ and came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have failed to prove genealogy and possession. 15. On the other hand, the learned counsel, Mr. Vidyasagar, for the respondent submitted that the Court below has rightly considered the oral as well as documentary evidences, i.e., exhibit ‘C’, ‘H’ and ‘G’ and came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have failed to prove genealogy and possession. The plaintiffs in the mutation proceeding gave a separate genealogy and then in the plaint gave separate genealogy and the Court below found that subsequently another genealogy was produced by the plaintiff which has been marked as ext. ‘24’. The learned counsel further submitted that the witnesses examined on behalf of the defendants have all supported the genealogy given by the defendant and none of the witnesses have been cross-examined by the plaintiffs on this question. Therefore, the learned Court below has rightly held that the plaintiffs failed to prove the genealogy. In title suit No.5 of 1980 filed by the plaintiff No.1 for eviction of Kariman Mahto, the plaintiff pleaded that Balkishun Mahto, plaintiff No.1 succeeded to all properties of Anchhi whereas in the present suit, it is pleaded that Kashinath was nearest agnate. Kariman is son of brother of Anchhi who was residing in the house since lifetime of Anchhi, therefore, in fact the defendants had allowed him to reside in the suit premises. Moreover, although Anchhi Devi had transferred the property to Chulhan Mahto, the defendants allowed Anchhi Devi to remain in possession of the property for her maintenance. After her death, the defendants came in possession and the gift was made by defendant No.1 in favour of Sheo Govind Pandey who performed Shradh. All the documents produced by the plaintiffs are manufactured for the purpose of defeating the genuine claim of the defendant. Exhibit 1/a which is registered II show that one settlee, Chulhan Ram, is in possession of portion of land given by Bhudan Yagn Committee. All these facts clearly proves that the plaintiffs were never in possession of the suit property. The learned counsel further submitted that the sale deed executed by Anchhi Devi is a valid sale deed and moreover being the reversioner, the property also devolves on defendant No.1. The sale deed was never challenged by the plaintiffs and the sale deed is registered sale deed, therefore, the presumption of genuineness is in favour of the defendants. 16. The learned counsel further submitted that the sale deed executed by Anchhi Devi is a valid sale deed and moreover being the reversioner, the property also devolves on defendant No.1. The sale deed was never challenged by the plaintiffs and the sale deed is registered sale deed, therefore, the presumption of genuineness is in favour of the defendants. 16. The learned counsel further submitted that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their adverse possession also as they have failed to prove their possession continuously. The learned counsel for the defendant respondent has also filed written argument elaborating all these points submitted by him. On these grounds, the learned counsel submitted that the First Appeal be dismissed with cost. 17. In view of the above rival contentions of the learned counsels for the parties, the following points arises for consideration in this First Appeal :— (a) Whether the plaintiffs or their father are the reversioner of Nathuni Mahto and Anchhi Devi or whether the defendant No.1 is the reversioner? (b) Whether the registered sale deed dated 3rd July, 1919 ext.‘B’ conferred title on the father of defendant No.1 and whether the plaintiffs were required to claim relief against the sale deed? (c) Whether the plaintiffs are in possession of the property or the defendants are in possession and whether the Judgment and Decree of the Court below is sustainable in the eye of law or not? 18. So far point No.(a) and (c) are concerned, both are interlinked, therefore, both the points are decided together hereinbelow. 19. According to the plaintiff, Kashinath Mahto was the nearest reversioner and father of the defendant No.1, namely, Chulhan Mahto, had no relation with Bandhu Mahto. On the contrary, according to the defendant, plaintiffs have no relation with Bandhu Mahto and Kahsinath, father of the plaintiffs was not the reversioner rather Chulhan Mahto was the reversioner. In support of their respective cases, both the parties have adduced their evidences. 20. Prior to dealing with the evidences of the parties, it may be mentioned that admittedly the disputed land is 8 biggha. It is admitted fact that Nathuni Mahto died in the year 1918 leaving behind his widow, Anchhi Devi who died in 1964. According to the genealogy of the plaintiff, Rambaran Mahto had two sons, Bandhu Mahto and Kothai Mahto @ Kothal Mahto. It is admitted fact that Nathuni was son of Bandhu. It is admitted fact that Nathuni Mahto died in the year 1918 leaving behind his widow, Anchhi Devi who died in 1964. According to the genealogy of the plaintiff, Rambaran Mahto had two sons, Bandhu Mahto and Kothai Mahto @ Kothal Mahto. It is admitted fact that Nathuni was son of Bandhu. The dispute is that according to defendant, father of Bandhu Mahto was Gauri Mahto and brother of Bandhu was Jodhi Mahto. Therefore, in the genealogy of defendant, Kothal Mahto has not been shown. 21. P.W.3 is one of the purchaser of portion of land from plaintiff No.1. He has stated that he has purchased the land from Balkishun and he is coming in possession of the same. Prior to his possession, Balkishun was in possession of the same. Likewise P.W.6 is also purchaser of the land from Balkishun, plaintiff No.1 in the year 1966. He has also stated about possession of Balkishun. At paragraph 12 of his cross-examination, this witness has stated that during life time of Anchhi, Balkishun was residing with her. P.W.14 has stated that Shradh of Anchhi was performed by Kashi Mahto, father of Balkishun. Kashi Mahto had given the dan-dakshina. P.W.15 has stated that Balkishun had constructed house on the land of Anchhi Devi. This witness has further denied the possession of Firangi, defendant No.1. P.W.16 is the labour who had also worked in construction of the house. P.W.17 has stated about the genealogy of the plaintiff and denied that Firangi belonged to the family of Bandhu Mahto. He has also stated that after death of Anchhi, Kashi Mahto and then Balkishun Mahto came in possession of the property of Anchhi Devi. 22. P.W.18 has also supported the genealogy of the plaintiff and denied the genealogy of the defendant. P.W.19 has stated about possession of Balkishun Mahto. P.W.22 has also stated the possession of Balkishun and construction of house by him. P.W.27 has stated that his land and some portion of land of Balkishun was acquired and both of them had received the compensation for the land. P.W.29 has said that Kashinath had performed Shradh of Anchhi Devi. P.W.32 is plaintiff No.1, Balkishun Mahto, who has fully supported his case pleaded in the plaint. 23. So far documentary evidences are concerned, the plaintiffs have produced exhibit ‘5’ series which are registered sale deeds. P.W.29 has said that Kashinath had performed Shradh of Anchhi Devi. P.W.32 is plaintiff No.1, Balkishun Mahto, who has fully supported his case pleaded in the plaint. 23. So far documentary evidences are concerned, the plaintiffs have produced exhibit ‘5’ series which are registered sale deeds. The plaintiff No.1 has sold some part of the properties to different purchasers. Exhibit ‘5’ is registered sale deed dated 15.07.1966, exhibit ‘5/A is the registered sale deed dt.21.01.1975, ext. ‘5/B’ is also a registered sale deed with respect to 91 decimal of land. These sale deeds clearly prove that the plaintiff No.1 was exercising his act of possession as owner thereof. The defendants in the written statement only denied that no property of Anchhi Devi has been sold by the plaintiff. However, the Court below disbelieved these registered sale deeds on the ground that the property sold through these registered sale deeds were not mentioned in the application filed by the plaintiff for mutation as such it is not clear as to whether Anchhi was the owner of the property and further that sale deeds have been executed by plaintiff No.1 and not by his father. The Court below further observed that in the plaint, no case has been made out that Kashinath was joint with plaintiff No.1 and plaintiff No.1 was karta and in that capacity, he sold the property. So far these reasons assigned by the Court below are concerned, are not acceptable because admittedly the documents are registered sale deeds executed by plaintiff No.1 after death of Anchhi Devi and the defendants claimed possession but never challenged the right, title and possession of the plaintiff and right to execute the sale deeds. The plaintiffs have produced these sale deeds to prove that they continued in possession after death of Anchhi Devi. 24. In the written statement, the defendants have made out a case that for maintenance, the possession of the property was given to Anchhi Devi till her life time. Exhibit ‘20’ has been produced by the plaintiff which is certified copy of the order dated 10th February, 1947 to 15.04.1947 passed by S.D.O. in proceeding under Section 26 of the Bihar Tenancy Act which was registered as district-Gaya No.59 of 46-47. From perusal of the orders, it appears that the application was filed by Chulhai Mahto, i.e., father of defendant No.1 against landlord. From perusal of the orders, it appears that the application was filed by Chulhai Mahto, i.e., father of defendant No.1 against landlord. In that proceeding, an objection was filed by Anchhi Devi alleging that she is in actual possession of the land which is purported to be sold under the Kewala deed. She is mutated and she is paying rent. The petitioner in that case was claiming on the basis of registered sale deed of the year 1919. The application was objected by Anchhi Devi saying that she never sold the property nor executed the sale deed but in spite of the said denial by Anchhi Devi, the defendant’s father never took any legal action and Anchhi Devi continued in possession. Again now, in this case in the defence, it is pleaded that they had purchased the land and in fact they allowed Anchhi Devi to continue in possession in lieu of her maintenance. This defence is falsified by exhibit ‘20’. 25. Exhibit ‘24’ is the genealogy produced by the plaintiff which is of the year 1948. This genealogy is same as that of the genealogy given in the plaint. The Court below wrongly disbelieved this genealogy stating that this genealogy is contrary to the genealogical table given by the plaintiff in mutation proceeding, i.e., exhibit ‘C’. From perusal of exhibit ‘C’, it appears that in the mutation proceeding, the elaborate genealogy was given showing the sisters of Nathuni as well as daughters of Bakhauri but it is never contradictory to the genealogy given in the plaint. In other words, in the plaint, the genealogy has been shown which are only relevant for the purpose of the suit. In the genealogy, i.e., exhibit ‘C’ Rambaran Mahto is shown as common ancestor who had two sons, Bandhu Mahto and Kothai Mahto. In exhibit ‘24’ also, that is the position and in the plaint also, the same is the position. It appears that the Court below disbelieved the genealogy saying that the genealogy are contradictory to each other without examining the same in details and without considering that in all these three genealogy, Rambaran is shown to be the common ancestor who had two sons Bandhu Mahto and Kothai Mahto. 26. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar Vs. 26. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar Vs. Radha Krishna Singh 1983 (3) S.C.C. 118 = AIR 1983 SC 684 has held that ‘the genealogies admitted or proved to be old and relied on in previous cases are relevant and in some cases may even be conclusive of the facts proved but the Courts before accepting or relying on the genealogies must keep in mind the source of the genealogy and its dependability, admissibility of the genealogy under the Evidence Act, age of genealogy and litigations where such genealogies have been accepted or rejected.’ In the present case admittedly, exhibit ‘24’ is of the year 1948. Exhibit ‘G’ the genealogy filed by the defendant to show that in the mutation proceeding, the plaintiff filed contrary genealogy is also same as that of exhibit ‘24’ which was relied on in the mutation proceeding and the plaintiff also examined the witnesses who have supported the genealogy mentioned in the plaint which is also same as that of exhibit ‘G’. 27. So far the genealogy given by the defendants is concerned, except the statements made in the written statement and the witnesses, there is nothing in support of the fact that plaintiff’s ancestor Kashinath had no relation with Anchhi Devi. The Court below while considering the genealogy of the defendants held that no cross-examination to the defendants witnesses have been made by the plaintiff, therefore, the genealogy is admitted by the plaintiff. This view taken by the Court below cannot be accepted because the only dispute between the parties is with respect to the genealogy, i.e., relationship of Bandhu and Kashinath. The plaintiff came with definite genealogy and the defendant came with another definite genealogy. Since the plaintiff has filed the suit and is praying for declaration of title, the onus is on the plaintiff to prove the genealogy. For proving the genealogy, the plaintiff adduced the oral evidences as well as documentary evidences. Now, therefore, only because on this question, the defendants witnesses have not been cross-examined, the plaintiff?s genealogy cannot be thrown out and on this principle, the plaintiff cannot be non-suited. For proving the genealogy, the plaintiff adduced the oral evidences as well as documentary evidences. Now, therefore, only because on this question, the defendants witnesses have not been cross-examined, the plaintiff?s genealogy cannot be thrown out and on this principle, the plaintiff cannot be non-suited. Here, the plaintiff not only produced evidences in support of genealogy but also has produced the documentary evidences to show that in fact after the death of Anchhi Devi, plaintiff No.1 is exercising act of possession over the land as owner being the reversioner of Anchhi Devi. 28. In the plaint, the plaintiffs clearly pleaded that at the time of Shradh of Anchhi Devi, some lands was gifted to Sheo Govind Pandey (Pandit Ji) which was confirmed later on. In support of this fact, ext.’14’ the registered gift deed has been filed by the plaintiff which is dated 13.10.1975. P.W.32 in his evidence has also supported this fact. The Court below observed that this document does not inspire confidence to believe it as a genuine document because there is contradictory recitals in the gift deed. In the gift deed, it is mentioned that the land was gifted for Shradh of Nathuni and Anchhi. This recitals makes confusion. So far this observation is concerned, again it may be reiterated that the Court below decided the genuineness of the document. The defendants are not questioning the document to be forged document. It is settled principle of law that a registered document will be presumed to be genuine and valid until the contrary is proved. Here, the plaintiffs have produced this deed of gift to show that in fact they as owner of property gifted the land to Pandit Ji. Therefore, in support of the possession of the plaintiff, the document was produced but the Court below instead of appreciating in this manner held that it is doubtful document. The defendants pleaded that in fact land was gifted by them. Except this statement and pleading, nothing is there. The documents have been produced by the plaintiff. 29. Exhibit ‘6’ has been produced by the plaintiff in support of the fact that Anchhi Devi filed an application under Section 40 of Bihar Tenancy Act for commutation of rent wherein the thumb impression of Anchhi Devi was identified by plaintiff No.1. Except this statement and pleading, nothing is there. The documents have been produced by the plaintiff. 29. Exhibit ‘6’ has been produced by the plaintiff in support of the fact that Anchhi Devi filed an application under Section 40 of Bihar Tenancy Act for commutation of rent wherein the thumb impression of Anchhi Devi was identified by plaintiff No.1. Although, plaintiff No.1 was not the applicant but then this document support the fact pleaded by the plaintiff that plaintiff No.1 was residing with Anchhi Devi. Ext. ‘7’ is Bajidawa executed by Lal Mohan Singh in favour of plaintiff No.1 in the year 1976 admitting the fact that in place of Balkishun Mahto, his name was wrongly recorded in survey parcha. This document also shows that the third person was recognizing Balkishun as owner of the property. If Balkishun was not related with Bandhu Mahto or that he was not the reversioner why Lal Mohan Singh executed the said Bajidawa. The other aspect of the matter is that although the property was entered in the name of Lal Mohan Singh, the defendants never took any action. They also never challenged registered sale deeds. The plaintiff also proves various rent receipts. Ext.‘15’ series are the canal khesras which are standing in the name of son of Sheo Govind Pandey. These documents have been produced to show that the plaintiff No.1 even delivered possession to the donee. Exhibit ‘16’ series are the water receipts. Ext.‘7’ is the khatiyan in the name of Sheo Govind Pandey. The trial Court held that all these documents exhibit ‘15’ series, ‘16’ series and ‘17’ series are on the basis of exhibit ‘14’, i.e., gift deed and gift deed itself is not genuine, therefore, these documents cannot be safely relied upon. This approach of the Court below is erroneous. In my opinion, therefore, the Court below has not appreciated the evidences in their right perspective. It is reiterated here that these documents have been filed only to show that the plaintiffs were in possession and after selling the property and even gifting the property, the purchaser and the donee came in possession. Therefore, the Court below has wrongly discarded all these documents by approaching the case in wrong angle. 30. Exhibit ‘12’ shows that in land acquisition proceeding, Balkishun, plaintiff No.1, was given compensation of Rs.2578.47/-. Therefore, the Court below has wrongly discarded all these documents by approaching the case in wrong angle. 30. Exhibit ‘12’ shows that in land acquisition proceeding, Balkishun, plaintiff No.1, was given compensation of Rs.2578.47/-. The Court below has wrongly disbelieved this document stating that there is no mention of description of the land. It will not be out of place to mention that it is admitted case between the parties that some property was acquired by State of Bihar. It is also not the case of defendant that some other land of Balkishun was acquired. 31. So far the defendant are concerned, they have filed exhibit, ‘C’, the report of circle inspector, to show that Balkishun is not in the genealogy of Nathuni Mahto. Exhibit ‘H’ has been filed to show that during inquiry, witnesses were examined who stated before the Inspector that after death of Anchhi, property was in possession of defendant’s father. So far ext. ‘C’ and ‘H’ are concerned, in my opinion, these are not admissible document for the purpose of proving the genealogy of the defendant. The author of the ext. ‘C’ i.e., Circle Inspector has not been examined as witnesses in this case and moreover his report is based on the evidences of witnesses and the witnesses who were examined by him are not the witnesses in this case. Therefore, the learned Court below wrongly relied on ext.‘C’ and ext. ‘H’. Ext. ‘D’ series are Nagar parcha which are of the year 1979-80 and likewise the other documents produced by the defendant all are of 1979-80 or 1974 when the dispute stated between the parties. The witness examined by the defendant in support of their genealogy is concerned, except the statement of the witness, there is no reliable evidence. Nowhere the genealogy given by them was disclosed by them. Therefore, the oral evidences of the defendants cannot be relied upon in face of overwhelming evidences of the plaintiffs discussed above which clearly proves the genealogy as well as the possession of the plaintiff. 32. In view of my above discussion of evidences, I find that the plaintiffs have been able to prove that plaintiff?s father was the nearest reversioner of Bandhu Mahto and after death of Anchhi Devi in the year 1964, the plaintiff came in possession thereof. The finding of trial Court on these points is, therefore, hereby reversed. 33. 32. In view of my above discussion of evidences, I find that the plaintiffs have been able to prove that plaintiff?s father was the nearest reversioner of Bandhu Mahto and after death of Anchhi Devi in the year 1964, the plaintiff came in possession thereof. The finding of trial Court on these points is, therefore, hereby reversed. 33. Point No. (b) :- The defendants also claimed title and possession on the basis of the registered sale deed executed by Anchhi Devi, ext. ‘B’ in the year 1919. It is admitted fact that Nathuni Mahto died in the year 1918, therefore, Anchhi Devi, a limited owner being the widow of Nathuni Mahto. Anchhi Devi died in 1964. We have seen above that in the proceeding under Section 26 of the Bihar Tenancy Act, Anchhi Devi filed objection denying execution of sale deed in the year 1947-48, ext. ‘20’. Thereafter, no steps were taken by the defendants. 34. It is settled principle of law that the words “Property possessed” occurring in Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act 1956 would apply to property possessed at the commencement of the Act, that is to say, to property acquired before the commencement. But, with a view to obviate argument and litigation on that matter, the legislature wisely introduced the clause “Whether acquired before or after the commencement of the Act”. The legislature thereby made it clear that Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act applied also to property which a Hindu women had inherited before the commencement of the Act, provided it was in her possession at the commencement of the Act. Therefore the property alienated by a Hindu widow and possessed by the alienee before the Act came into force is not covered within the language of Section 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act will not enlarge the rights of alineees who took the property before the Act came into force with open eyes from such limited owner without justifying necessity for alienation. In the present case, admittedly except the statement of legal necessity, nothing has been brought on record to show the necessity of Anchhi Devi for selling the entire 8 biggha land for Rs.250/- only. 35. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in AIR 1966 SC 216 Radha Rani Bhargava Vs. In the present case, admittedly except the statement of legal necessity, nothing has been brought on record to show the necessity of Anchhi Devi for selling the entire 8 biggha land for Rs.250/- only. 35. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in AIR 1966 SC 216 Radha Rani Bhargava Vs. Hanuman Prasad Bhargava has held that ‘in the case of an alienation by a Hindu widow without legal necessity, the reversioners are not bound to institute a declaratory suit during the life-time of the widow. They can sue after her death the alienee for possession of the alienated property treating the alienation as a nullity without the Court's intervention.’ 36. The Madras High Court also has given the same view in AIR 2001 Madras 6 Nalan @ Keerimuthan Vs. Vellaiyankudumban. 37. In view of my above discussion, I find that the defendants failed to prove that the transfer made by widow Anchhi Devi to the widow’s estate is for legal necessity. They also failed to prove that they came in possession on the basis of the sale deed. They also failed to prove their possession after death of Anchhi Devi. Therefore, the property of Nathuni Mahto after death of Anchhi Devi devolved on the nearest reversioner Kashinath Mahto. The finding of the Court below on the contrary is thus reversed. 38. In the result, this Appeal is allowed. The Judgment and Decree passed by the Court below is hereby set aside. The plaintiff’s suit is decreed in too. In the fats and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost.