title and interest over the suit land, to transfer the same to the plaintiffs as the said Maharaja Chintamani Saran Nath Sahdeo was neither in possession of the suit land, on the date of alleged transfer in favour of the plaintiff No.6 and the ancestors of the plaintiff Nos.1 to 5 i.e. on 05.11.1965 nor on the date of vesting of the said property with the State of Bihar. The defendants further pleaded that Maharaja Chintamani Saran Nath Sahdeo orally settled 0.270 acres of land out of the suit plot in favour of Sheikh Ahmad- who is the father of the defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3. The oral settlement was confirmed by delivery of possession and grant of rent receipts coupled with customary Hukumnama dated 13.12.1948; upon which the settlee came and continued in possession of the settled land and paid rent to the landlord, upon grant of rent receipts. After death of the settlee Sheikh Ahmad, the defendant Nos.1 to 3 inherited the same and they in the family arrangement, have allowed their nearest relatives being the defendant Nos.4 and 5 to come in the possession over the said settled land. Thus, the defendant Nos.1 to 5 have valid right, title, interest and possession over the suit land. Even if there is any defect in the title of the defendants, the same stood perfected in favour of the defendants by way of adverse possession, by the defendants remaining in possession over the suit land. The said Maharaja Chintamani Saran Nath Sahdeo also orally settled 0.40 acres of land, out of the suit plot No.51, in favour of Sheikh Miya Jan, who is the father of the defendant No.6 and the same was confirmed by delivery of possession and grant of rent receipts followed by customary Parwana dated 13.12.1938. The said settlee also came and continued in possession of the settled land by paying rent to the landlord on grant of rent receipts. The defendants further denied the entire pleadings of the plaintiffs; made in the plaint.
