JUDGMENT : This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Cuttack in Title Appeal No. 21 of 1980 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Jajpur in Title Suit No. 70 of 1971. The predecessors in interest of respondent no. 2 to 6 with respondent no. 7 had filed the suit for declaration of their title, recovery of possession with further relief of declaring the order passed by the learned Executive Magistrate in Criminal Misc. Case No. 71 of 1966 in proceeding under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as not binding on them and respondent no. 9 to 12 (defendant no. 3(a) to 3(d)). The suit having been decreed, the present appellant-defendant no. 1 being aggrieved by it had filed the first appeal under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appeal has also faced the dismissal. Therefore, the present second appeal has been filed under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the confirmation judgment and decree passed by the courts below. It may be stated at this place that the appellant having died during this appeal, his legal representatives have been substituted and so also the legal representatives of one such legal representative and they are now pursuing the appeal. 2. For the sake of convenience as also to avoid confusion and bring in clarity, the parties hereinafter have been described as per their position as assigned in the trial court. 3. The case of the plaintiffs is that the defendant no. 2 had acquired lot-1 to lot-3 land on 19.06.1935 under sale-deed, Ext. 1 and also under sale-deeds, Exts-2 and 3 dated 29.09.1937 and 06.06.1940 respectively. He had constructed the house over a portion excavated a tank, dug wells on other part and had also planted trees. In the year 1943, this defendant no. 2 had to leave the village for Kolkata to look after his ailing elder brother keeping the defendant no. 1 in-charge of all those properties. In course of his stay at Kolkata, he got an employment at Kolkata Port in January, 1944 and accordingly changing his mind decided to settle there. So, in March, 1944, he came to village and disbursed all his movables and reassured with the earlier arrangement relating to the suit land with house, tank, trees, wells etc. In course of his stay at Kolkata, he got an employment at Kolkata Port in January, 1944 and accordingly changing his mind decided to settle there. So, in March, 1944, he came to village and disbursed all his movables and reassured with the earlier arrangement relating to the suit land with house, tank, trees, wells etc. remaining under the care, control and management of defendant no. 1 as before. After some years, it was found that defendant no. 1 completely mismanaged those properties and misappropriated the usufructs thereof. So, defendant no. 2 took over the charge of those properties from him and kept it in-charge of husband of the plaintiff no. 1, father of defendant no. 4 and original plaintiff no. 2. Thereafter, defendant no. 2 sold the properties to the husband of the plaintiff no. 1, original defendant no. 2 and 3 under registered sale-deed dated 12.03.1966 (Ext. 4) for consideration of Rs. 2,000/-. It is next alleged that defendant no. 1 with an ulterior motive of grabbing the suit properties and with a mind to continue with the unlawful gain as he was making before when the properties were under his management got one proceeding under section 145 Cr.P.C. initiated. In the said proceeding, he claimed the properties to in possession as a bhag tenant under the defendant no. 2, as also pursuant to the contract for sale with the defendant no. 2 and produced some forged and fabricated letters purporting to have been issued by defendant no. 2 to him mentioning about the receipt of money. However, in spite of physical possession of the suit properties resting with the vendees pursuant to the sale-deed dated 12.03.1966 (under Ext.4), the proceeding under section 145 Cr.P.C. culminated in favour of the defendant no. 1 declaring his possession. So, the suit came to be filed. 4. The defendant no. 1 pleaded that the defendant no. 2 while leaving the village had demolished the house standing over one plot and sold away the building materials together with other movables and had inducted him as bhag tenant in respect of the same leaving the homestead land in his control and charge. He has averred to have been paying bhag dues to defendant no. 2 at times in cash and some time in kind. It is his further case that in the year 1947, the defendant no. He has averred to have been paying bhag dues to defendant no. 2 at times in cash and some time in kind. It is his further case that in the year 1947, the defendant no. 2 having agreed to sale the suit land along-with undisputed land measuring 12 decimals to him for consideration of that Rs. 500/- had given the delivery of possession of the same and accordingly he is in possession. It is stated that out of agreed consideration of Rs. 500/-, a sum of Rs. 300/- has been paid in two instalments and out of the balance of Rs. 200/-, he had sent a sum of Rs. 160/- in two phases to defendant no. 2. It is also claimed by defendant no. 1 that he has amalgamated the portion of the suit land appertaining to plot no. 1624 and 1020 with his undisputed plot of land under 1622 having green fence all around and had constructed an outhouse. He also pleads to have established a brick klin on the suit land and to have made several other improvements including carrying out of plantation activities, excavation of tank etc. So, for part of the suit land, it is his case that he has been in possession in part performance of the said contract for sale to the knowledge of the plaintiffs and as such his possession is protected under section 53-A of the T.P. Act. An alternative case has also been set up by defendant no. 1 to have perfected title over it by adverse possession with his open, peaceful and continuous possession for a long period. It is alleged that the plaintiffs being a litigious person (Mamlatkar) has laid their false claim over the suit property by creating fraudulent, nominal, collusive and illegal sale-deed from defendant no. 2 finding the attractive potentiality of the land. Another legal representative of defendant no. 3 has adopted the written statement of defendant no. 1 and the legal representatives of original defendant no. 3 have supported the case of defendant no. 1 by filing a written statement which has also been accordingly adopted by another legal representative of original defendant no. 3. 5. The defendant no. 2 in his written statement denied the factum of induction of defendant no. 1 as a bhag tenant under him in respect of the suit properties at any time. 1 by filing a written statement which has also been accordingly adopted by another legal representative of original defendant no. 3. 5. The defendant no. 2 in his written statement denied the factum of induction of defendant no. 1 as a bhag tenant under him in respect of the suit properties at any time. He also denied to have ever entered into any contract for sale of the suit land with defendant no. 1 and to have received money from him. The defendant no. 2 supported the claim of the plaintiff’s ownership as also possession of the suit properties by them in pleading inter alia that the properties had been left under the management of defendant no. 1 for some years during his absence. Thus, the defendant no. 2 having fully supported the case of the plaintiff, did not further proceed to participate in the hearing of the suit. 6. The trial court faced with the above rival pleadings, framed in total seven issues. Going to decide issue no. 1 to 3 as regards the claim of defendant no. 1 on the basis of agreement for sale of the suit land, which is denied by the plaintiffs; the protection to possession as available to him under section 53-A of the T.P. Act vis-à-vis the claim of plaintiffs being the bonafide purchaser of value, finally upon analysis of evidence on record in the touchstone of the rival pleadings as also viewing the position of law has answered the first two against the defendant no. 1 and the third one in favour of the plaintiffs. The decision under issue no. 4 as regards the claim of acquisition of title over the suit land by defendant no. 1 by adverse possession has been rendered in the negative. This has finally led the trial court to decide issue no. 7 holding the plaintiffs to have the right, title, interest and the right to possess the suit land. With such findings, the suit has been decreed. The defendant no. 2 having moved the lower appellate court has failed to get relieved of his sufferings by that judgment and decree passed by the trial court. The trial court’s judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiffs granting them the reliefs have been confirmed, those have been called in question in this second appeal. 7. The defendant no. 2 having moved the lower appellate court has failed to get relieved of his sufferings by that judgment and decree passed by the trial court. The trial court’s judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiffs granting them the reliefs have been confirmed, those have been called in question in this second appeal. 7. The appeal has been admitted on the substantial questions of law as stated under ground no. 15 of the memorandum of appeal which are reproduced here in below:- (a) Whether the plaintiff can seek declaration of title on the basis of his purchase from one of the persons though the same was purchased by the said persons and two others? (b) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the defendant no.1 can be evicted on failure of his plea of contract for sale although (admittedly) he was a Bhag Chasi and has not been evicted in course of law? (c) Whether the letters Ext. J and K and money orders receipts Exts. C and D do constitute under the facts and circumstances of the case a valid contract for sale and in pursuance thereof the appellant being in possession of the disputed properties, can appellant under such circumstances avail of protection afforded under section 53-A of the T.P. Act? (d) Can the plaintiff be said to have notice of the contract if any when admittedly defendant no.1 was in possession of the disputed property? 8. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the courts below have erred in law by not considering the evidence in their true prospective and going to negate the claim of possession of the defendant no. 1 as Bhag Chasi. It is also her submission that although no written contract for sale has been proved in this case, yet from the letters, Ext. J and K, money order receipts Ext. C and D, the courts below ought to have concluded that there was a valid contract for sale and as such a finding ought to have been recorded that the defendant no. 1 being in possession of the suit property pursuant to the said contract for sale, his possession stands protected under section 53-A of the T.P. Act. She also alternatively submits that the possession of the defendant no. 1 being in possession of the suit property pursuant to the said contract for sale, his possession stands protected under section 53-A of the T.P. Act. She also alternatively submits that the possession of the defendant no. 1 for such long period, which has been proved to be open, peaceful and continuous ought not to have been lightly ignored and those ought to have been found to be in exercise of all the rights of ownership and accordingly, the alternative claim of title by adverse possession ought to have been held to have been established. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the plea of the appellants are all diametrically in opposition to one another. When at one stage, it is said that a portion was in his possession as Bhag tenant, it is also said at another stage to be pursuant to the agreement for sale and then again protection to that possession is claimed under section 53-A of the T.P. Act and also an alternative case of acquisition by adverse possession has been projected. According to him, the evidence on record are not at all there for acceptance of the claim of defendant no. 1 as Bhag Chasi and the agreement for sale being not evidenced by any writing, the protection to possession of defendant no. 1 as claimed even if it is said to have been in pursuance of the said agreement would not be available under law. It is his last submission that here the alternative case is not even entertainable since the main claims rest on having remained in possession as Bhag tenant and in pursuant to the agreement for sale as those are in conflict with one another and this claim of acquisition of title by adverse possession cannot be taken without abandoning the claim with the status as Bhag Chasi as well as the possession basing upon the so called agreement for sale. 10. Addressing the first substantial question of law as at ‘A’, it is seen that both the courts below responding to the same, have ultimately negatived the contention of defendant no. 1 and have held the suit to be maintainable. The plaintiffs in para-3 and 4 of the plaint have pleaded as to how the suit land was acquired by defendant no. 2. The acquisition of land by defendant no. 2 under Ext. 1 and have held the suit to be maintainable. The plaintiffs in para-3 and 4 of the plaint have pleaded as to how the suit land was acquired by defendant no. 2. The acquisition of land by defendant no. 2 under Ext. 2 shows that it was so acquired along with his two other brothers. It has been specifically pleaded that lot 1 to 3 land was solely acquired by defendant no. 2. This has not been denied in the written statement. Although a part of the pleadings of those paras has been denied in para-8 and 9 of the written statement yet those relate to the cause of defendant no. 2 in leaving the village and proceeding to Kolkata as also with regard to the intimacy with defendant no. 1. Moreover, the very case projected by defendant no. 1 that he was a Bhag tenant under defendant no. 2 and was in possession of a portion pursuant to the agreement for sale entered into with defendant no.1 if taken on their face value and assumed as such, there emerges the admission on his part so far as the acquisition of the land by defendant no. 2 is concerned. It has also been in the evidence of one of the witnesses examined as P.W. 1 that though name of two brothers find place in Ext. 2, the defendant no. 2 for all purposes was the owner having paid the entire consideration from his own purse. Said evidence has not been challenged even during cross-examination. Moreover, if the defence is taken into consideration, this defendant no.1 having accepted the defendant no.2 as the landlord and then again when he says to have taken possession from him under an agreement for sale, the law of estoppel squarely applies and stands in the way to dispute such question touching the title of the defendant no.2. Thus, the trial court as well as the lower appellate court have rightly held this suit to be maintainable. The first substantial question of law accordingly receives the answer which goes against the appellants. 11. With regard to the second, third and fourth substantial questions of law, let’s begin with the case projected by the defendants. Here it is not a case of a written agreement for sale; so the provision under section 53-A of the T.P. Act does not come to be attracted at all. 11. With regard to the second, third and fourth substantial questions of law, let’s begin with the case projected by the defendants. Here it is not a case of a written agreement for sale; so the provision under section 53-A of the T.P. Act does not come to be attracted at all. Fact stands that the defendant no. 1 has not filed any suit for specific performance for agreement of sale and now he seeks to protect his possession saying it to be in pursuance of said oral agreement for sale drawing support from two letters and money order receipts and possession, with the aid of the section 53-A of the T.P. Act. The courts below have specifically recorded the finding on fact that Ext. J and K taken together with Ext. C and D do not unambiguously indicate as regards said agreement for sale of the suit land to have been arrived at between defendant nos. 1 and 2. It has also been found by the courts below by detail examination of evidence taking into account the admitted prior relationship between defendant no. 1 and 2 as it was then that such remittances cannot be said to have been towards part payment of consideration. The courts below have also disbelieved the factum of delivery of possession on the basis of any agreement for sale as to have been between the defendant no. 2 in favour of defendant no. 1. Giving a careful reading to the relevant paragraphs of the judgment of the courts below as also the evidence no such material is seen to be surfacing to say that such factual findings are perverse. Scrutiny of evidence appears to have been made from all possible angles and so appreciated in reaching at the conclusions as above. So those findings are not liable to be interfered in the second appeal even if another view may possibly be taken which is permissible to be substituted only when the finding is held as perverse. Next coming to the claim of possession by defendant no. 1 as Bhag chasi in respect of lot-1 property, the said status of defendant no. 1 has not been recognized by any competent authority and it is seen that the defendant no. 1 has never laid any claim on that score earlier. Next coming to the claim of possession by defendant no. 1 as Bhag chasi in respect of lot-1 property, the said status of defendant no. 1 has not been recognized by any competent authority and it is seen that the defendant no. 1 has never laid any claim on that score earlier. Moreover, even though it is accepted for the time being that he was Bhag Chasi, the subsequent claims as advanced and as per defendant no. 1’s own showing, the same does not at all hold water. The claim of defendant no. 1 as regards acquisition of title by adverse possession, in my considered view in the facts and circumstances of the case as per settled law has no leg to stand. The aforesaid discussion and reasons accordingly provide necessary answers to the above substantial questions of law which also run against the appellant. 12. Resultantly, the appeal stands dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances no order as to cost is passed.