original defendant 2nd set, who sold Scheduled-A of the plaint to the plaintiffs through a registered sale deed. In the said suit, written statement was filed by the petitioners and denied the entire averments made in the plaint on various grounds. It has also been alleged in the written statement that Lalji Sah was nearer and dearer to Kiro Sah and Hiro Sah, son of Kapuchand Sah and they had taken the suit land in settlement in the name of Lalji Sah. It is the case of the petitioners that at the stage of hearing of the suit, the plaintiff came to know that another Title Suit No. 179 of 2004 was going on in the Court of learned 1st Sub-ordinate Judge, Madhepura, between the parties litigating under the same title and there also the issue was as to whether the settlement had been taken by Hiro Sah and Kiro Sah or Lalji Sah. During the course of hearing of Title Suit No. 179 of 2004, the plaintiffs also came to know that the settlement was not taken in the name of Lalji Sah by Hiro Sah and Kiro Sah. Hiro Sah and Kiro Sah had taken loan from one Bhagli Usha, who filed a Money Suit No. 49 of 1932 against said persons for recovery of her debt. The suit was decreed and execution case was filed by decree holder. During the pendency of the execution case, the judgment debtor paid the decreetal amount by Hiro Sah and Kiro Sah and accordingly, the execution case
