Learned senior counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that in view of judgment and decree dated 21.01.1999 passed in counter-claim in favour of defendant No.1 in the previous suit, defendant No.1 is owner in possession of the suit land and the alleged sale deeds in favour of the plaintiff confer no right, title or interest on the plaintiff in the suit land. The contention is completely misconceived and untenable. The previous suit had been instituted by defendant Nos.2 and 3 herein against their father Chau Khan. Defendant No.1 herein became party to that suit as defendant No.2 and made counter-claim. The said counter-claim was decreed against defendant Nos.2 and 3 who were plaintiffs in that suit and not against Chau Khan, who himself was defendant No.1 in that suit. In addition to it, long before the said counter-claim was decreed, Chau Khan himself sold the suit land to the plaintiff and, therefore, the plaintiff became owner in possession of the suit land. Counter claim of defendant No.1 herein as made in the previous suit was on the basis that Chau Khan had no male issue and, therefore, he could not transfer the suit land to his daughters defendant Nos.2 and 3 herein, who were plaintiffs in the previous suit. The said claim of defendant No.1 herein was accepted. However, the said claim did not deprive Chau Khan himself of the ownership of the suit land during his life time. In other words, Chau Khan continued to be owner of the suit land during his life time. He sold the suit land to the plaintiff vide sale deeds dated 16.05.1994 and 17.05.1994. Consequently, the plaintiff became owner in possession of the suit land and no right, title or
