back in 1985, under a registered sale deed. Therefore, it is clearly evident that the family lost this site way back in 1985. The first sale executed by defendant No.1's father is not at all questioned by the defendants till this date. The plaintiff, referring to the title deed and after due enquiry, purchased this property in 2006. If the defendants' family lost the site in 1985, they cannot be permitted to contend now that the suit property is a joint family ancestral property and that defendant No.1's father had no right to meddle with the suit site. Such a defence cannot be entertained at this juncture. The family lost the suit site in 1985 and the first purchaser, having enjoyed the property for almost 21 years, has further transferred it in favour of the plaintiff under a registered sale deed for valuable sale consideration. If plaintiff after verifying title deed and other documents has purchased the site, the defendants who have slept over their rights, if any, cannot now be permitted to question the plaintiff's title. Referring to the cogent and clinching evidence let in by plaintiff, both the Courts have concurrently held that plaintiff has succeeded
