Jatni v. Mostt. Sitami(since dead)

Patna High Court FA No.68 of 1987 dt.31-10-2013 executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant no.3, who was a small child then, by wrongly stating the fact that defendant no.3 used to serve the plaintiff due to which she had executed the gift deed. The plaintiff thus has denied to have executed the two sale deeds and the gift deed and has given the details of the fraud committed on her by defendant nos. 1 and 2 in fabricating of those documents and getting the same registered. In paragraph no.28 of the plaint the plaintiff has stated that she became aware of the aforesaid transfers of her land in favour of the defendants through rumour and then got the certified copies of those sale deeds and gift deed and became aware of the fraud committed by the defendants. On the aforesaid premises the plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration of title over the land mentioned in Schedule-2 to 4 of the plaint.

7. The defendants appeared and jointly filed their written statement contesting the claim of the plaintiff. It is the case of the defendants that the assertion of the plaintiff that though she is separate from Harihar Bhagat but the properties have not been divided, is wrong. The defendants have stated that there has been partition between Narsingh Bhagat and Harihar Bhagat and it is Harihar Bhagat and his sons who have got the present suit instituted by the plaintiff. The defendants have further denied to have obtained the thumb impressions of the plaintiff on plain papers after making 6 Patna High Court FA No.68 of 1987 dt.31-10-2013 false representation. The defendants have also denied to have committed fraud in getting the sale deed executed in favour of defendant no.2 and had asserted that the plaintiff willingly and knowingly had executed the sale deed after getting the consideration money. It has also been asserted that the execution of the sale deed in favour of defendant no.1 was done after taking the part consideration money and the entire proceeding of compulsory registration had been done in accordance with law and after service of notice on the plaintiff. It has been also pointed out by the defendants that out of the total consideration money of Rs.10,000/- the plaintiff received Rs.8000/- prior to the execution of the document and the remaining consideration amount of Rs.2000/- was to be paid at the time of execution before the Registrar, but as the plaintiff did not accept the said execution before the Registrar, the said amount could not be paid. The defendants have therefore also offered to pay the said amount of Rs.2000/- to the plaintiff. It is the case of the defendants that defendant no.3 was aged about 6-7 years and used to serve the plaintiff who executed the gift deed in his favour with the consent of defendant nos. 1 and 2. The defendants have denied the allegations of fraud, misrepresentation and coercion, as made by the plaintiff against them and have asserted that the three deeds of transfer in question have been executed out of free will and consent 7 Patna High Court FA No.68 of 1987 dt.31-10-2013 by the plaintiff. The defendants have also claimed that the plaintiff is not in possession over the land subject matter of the three deeds of transfer in question.

8. In view of the rival pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed altogether eight issues which are as follows:

1. Is the suit as framed, maintainable?

2. Has the plaintiff got any cause of action for the suit?

3. Are the sale deeds dated 9-2-67 and 16-3-70 alleged to have been executed by Mst. Jatni, valid, genuine and for consideration or the same are fraudulent?

4. Is the deed of gift dated 11-6-1971 valid, genuine and operative or the same is fraudulent?

5. Whether the defendants ever came in possession over the suit lands?

6. Whether the plaintiff has got right, title and interest over the suit lands?

7. Whether there was any partition between Narsingh and Harihar by metes and bounds?

8. To what other relief or reliefs is the plaintiff entitled to?

9. After considering the evidence and submissions of the parties, the learned court below has decided the Issue nos. 3 to 6 in favour of the plaintiff and held that the sale deeds dated 9-2-67 and 8 Patna High Court FA No.68 of 1987 dt.31-10-2013 16-3-70 and the gift deed dated 11-6-1971 are not genuine and validly executed documents by the plaintiff and further also found the same to be inoperative. It has been further held by the learned court below that the plaintiff has got full right, title and interest over the lands detailed in the Schedules of the plaint. However while deciding the issue nos. 1 and 2 the learned court below has held that the suit is barred by limitation. It has also been held that the suit has been filed on her behalf by her ‘Dewar’ (husband’s brother) Harihar Bhagat and therefore it has been held that the plaintiff has no cause of action for the suit and the suit as framed is not maintainable.

10. As mentioned above, this appeal has been filed by the plaintiff assailing the decree of dismissal of her suit on the findings by the learned court below with regard to the issues of maintainability and existence of cause of action to the plaintiff for the suit and also the limitation which have been decided against the plaintiff.

11. A cross-objection has been filed by the defendants assailing the findings on issue nos. 3 to 6 holding that the two sale deeds and the gift deed in question are not valid and operative documents and the plaintiff has got full right, title and interest over the suit land. As the cross-objection has not been filed within time, a petition for condonation of delay has also been filed by the defendants-respondents. 9 Patna High Court FA No.68 of 1987 dt.31-10-2013

12. On behalf of the appellants I.A.No. 6460 of 2013, I.A.No. 6459 of 2013, I.A.No. 6461 of 2013 and I.A.No. 6709 of 2013 have also been filed.

13. Mr. S. S. Dwivedi, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the findings on issue Nos. 1 and 2 against the plaintiff are not sustainable either in law or on facts. It has been urged that the learned court below has misinterpreted the evidence on record and has also ignored the relevant evidence which show that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not barred by limitation. It has been argued that once after the plaintiff has been examined in the suit in support of the assertions made in the plaint, there was no scope for the finding that the plaintiff has not filed the suit and it has been filed by her ‘Dewar’(husband’s brother). Elaborating his submissions it has been pointed out by the learned senior counsel that the verification and the affidavit in support of the plaint have been done by the plaintiff herself and these facts have not been challenged in the written statement and as such the defendants should be precluded from raising such a question only by taking a cue from the general statement of the plaintiff that for the purpose of filing the suit she had visited the advocate’s Office along with her ‘Dewar’ who explained the facts on her behalf. It has been canvassed that admittedly the plaintiff is an illiterate rustic lady and it would not, therefore, be 10 Patna High Court FA No.68 of 1987 dt.31-10-2013 unusual for her to take her ‘Dewar’ alongwith her to the advocate and also allow to take lead in the discussion in presence of the plaintiff. It has been pointed out by the learned Senior counsel that there is no corroborative evidence to support the contention of the defendants that the plaintiff did not intend to file the suit and the same was filed at the instance of her ‘Dewar’. Placing the deposition of the plaintiff in paragraph nos. 17, 18 and 19 it has been submitted that the three paragraphs must be read conjointly in order to gather the true tenor of the statements made therein and the contents of the three paragraphs read together only show that the plaintiff had acquired the knowledge of the fraud committed on her by the defendants four years after the execution of the deeds and thereafter she obtained certified copies of those documents, and as such when the last deed was executed in the year 1971 and the suit was filed in the year 1977, it cannot be held that the suit is barred by limitation. The learned counsel has also propounded that the plaintiff has, in fact, by making averments relating to fraud in detail in the plaint, sought the relief for declaration of her title over the suit lands on the ground that she never knowingly executed the deeds of transfer in question in favour of the defendants and those documents remained inoperative throughout, and in that view of the matter, the plaintiff was not required to seek the relief for cancellation or setting aside those deeds. The learned 11 Patna High Court FA No.68 of 1987 dt.31-10-2013 senior counsel, however, has also pressed the Interlocutory application (I.A.No. 6459 of 2013) for amendment in the plaint by addition of the relief for declaration of the two sale deeds and the gift deed as void and inoperative documents. The learned senior counsel has also pressed the Interlocutory application (I.A.No. 6709 of 2013) which has been filed under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. whereby the prayer has been made to take the certified copy of the gift deed and the sale deed dated 14-8-1969 as additional evidence in this appeal. It has been submitted that since the existence of the sale deeds and the gift deed are not disputed , the additional evidence is required only to support the fact that the certified copies of those three documents have been obtained by the plaintiff in the year 1976. It has also been submitted in this regard that the defendants could not be taken by surprise by these documents, as the plaintiff in her deposition has disclosed that she had obtained certified copies of these documents in the year 1976 itself.

14. The learned senior counsel has also pressed the substitution petition (I.A.No. 6460 of 2013) which has been filed by the heir of deceased appellant no.1 Kailash Prasad stating that the deceased appellant no.1 died on 13-6-2011 leaving behind two daughters and the heirs of another predeceased daughter Saraswati Devi out of whom his only one daughter Dhurpati Devi wants to 12 Patna High Court FA No.68 of 1987 dt.31-10-2013 pursue this appeal and others have expressed no concern with this appeal and as such, the prayer has been made for substitution of only one of his daughters Durpati Devi in place of the deceased appellant no.1. The Interlocutory application (I.A.No. 6461 of 2013) for condonation of delay in filing the substitution petition has also been filed. The learned senior counsel has submitted that the prayer has been made for substitution by the proposed heir after condonation of delay and setting aside the abatement on the ground mentioned in these two applications.

15. Mr. Chitragupt Prasad, the learned counsel appearing for the defendants-respondents, in reply, has submitted that there is no illegality or irregularity in the finding of the learned court below that the suit is barred by limitation. It has been urged by the learned counsel that in view of the statements made by the plaintiff in paragraph no.18 of her deposition that she acquired knowledge of the fraud four years after the execution of the documents, it is apparent that the suit is barred by limitation, as the first document has been executed in the year 1967. It has been further submitted by the learned counsel that the learned court below has rightly considered and decided the issue of limitation on the basis of the assertions made in the plaint and the statements made in the deposition. It has been further argued by the learned counsel that the averments made in the 13 Patna High Court FA No.68 of 1987 dt.31-10-2013 plaint do not disclose the cause of action for filing the suit and therefore also the learned court below has rightly found that the suit is not maintainable as barred by limitation and absence of cause of action.

16. The learned counsel has submitted that the cross- objection filed on behalf of the defendants-respondents challenging the findings of the learned court below regarding the invalidity of the sale deeds and the gift deed and regarding declaration of the plaintiff’s right, title and interest over the suit land is maintainable. It has been submitted that the cross-objection could not be filed earlier due to mistake of the lawyer and therefore the delay in filing the same should be condoned on the ground of equity because a litigant should not be allowed to suffer for the mistake of his lawyer.

17. The learned counsel has also contested the prayer for substitution of the heir of deceased appellant no.1 and has submitted that the prayer for substitution of only one heir of deceased appellant no.1 has been malafidely prayed without further prayer to implead other heirs also as parties to the appeal. Relying on the averments made in the counter-affidavit it has been submitted that the prayer for substitution be rejected.

18. With regard to the prayer made by the appellants for adducing additional evidence it has been submitted on behalf of the 14 Patna High Court FA No.68 of 1987 dt.31-10-2013 respondents that the said prayer cannot be entertained for the purpose of filling up the lacuna in the evidence. It has also been submitted that no substantial reason has been assigned for adducing additional evidence. The learned counsel has also contested the prayer on behalf of the appellants for amendment in plaint and has submitted that such amendment, if allowed, with changes the nature and scope of the suit.

19. With regard to the findings by the learned court below on the issue of fraud and the validity of the impugned sale deeds and the gift deed, it has been submitted by the learned counsel that the learned court below has ignored the material evidence in this regard and has recorded the wrong finding. The learned counsel has also submitted that the evidence led by the plaintiff are not sufficient to sustain the finding that the two sale deeds in question and the gift deed in question are fraudulent documents and in any view of the matter, those findings must be held to be redundant as the suit has been held to be barred by limitation and also not maintainable due to absence of cause of action.

20. In view of the rival contentions of the parties, the following points emerge for determination in this appeal: (I) Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable in absence of cause of action and is also barred by limitation and the dismissal of the suit as such by the learned court 15 Patna High Court FA No.68 of 1987 dt.31-10-2013 below is sustainable? (II) Whether two sale deeds dated 09.02.1967 and

14.08.1969 executed by Most Jatni in favour of the defendant no.1 Sukhdeo Bhagat (since deceased) and defendant no.2 Raghuwar Bhagat respectively and the gift deed dated 29.04.1971 executed by Most Jatni in favour of defendant no.3 Jai Prakash Bhagat are legal, valid and operative documents and the finding by the learned court below upholding the claim of the plaintiff against these documents is legally sustainable in view of the cross objection by the defendant-respondnets?

21. Before taking up the aforesaid points for consideration, it is necessary to dispose of the prayer for substitution as made in I.A.No.6460/13 after condonation of delay in that regard as prayed in I.A.No.6461/13 with regard to the deceased appellant no.1 Kailash Prasad (one of the substituted heirs of the deceased sole appellant).

22. There is no dispute that Most Jatni was the sole plaintiff in the suit and after the dismissal of the suit, she filed this appeal. During the pendency of the appeal she died on 12.01.1990 and a petition was filed by her heirs and legal representatives on 21.03.1990 praying for their substitution in her place. By order dated 04.05.1990, the prayer for substitution was allowed and the applicants Kailash 16 Patna High Court FA No.68 of 1987 dt.31-10-2013 Prasad, Sheo Shankar Prasad and Paras Prasad were substituted as appellants in this appeal after expunging the name of the sole appellant Most Jatni. It is apparent from the said substitution petition that the substituted appellants claimed themselves to be the legal heirs and successor of Most Jatni being the brother’s sons of her husband. Thereafter, during the pendency of this appeal , one of the substituted appellants namely Kailash Prasad died, a petition (I.A.No.6460/13) has been filed on behalf of one of her daughters Dhurpati Devi praying for her substitution in his place. It has been stated in the interlocutory application that the other heirs who are the one more daughter Geeta Kumari of the deceased appellant no.1 Kailash Prasad and the sons and daughters of his another pre-deceased daughter Sarsawati Devi have expressed no concern with the appeal and declined to join Dhurpati Devi in her prayer to be substituted in place of the deceased appellant no.1 Kailash Prasad. As there has been delay of about two years two months in making the prayer for substitution in view of the death of the appellant no.1 Kailash Prasad occurring on 13.06.2011, the petition for condonation of delay (I.A.No.6460/13) has been filed assigning the reasons for delay in the prayer for substitution.

23. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents to the substitution petition and the limitation petition 17 Patna High Court FA No.68 of 1987 dt.31-10-2013 resisting the prayer for substitution firstly on the ground that the prayer for substitution cannot be allowed when the other heirs have been left out and secondly on the ground that no sufficient cause has been made for condonation of delay in making the prayer for substitution.

24. The learned counsel for the parties have made elaborate submissions on the point of substitution.

25. From the facts apparent from the record it transpires that the deceased substituted appellant no.1 was substituted alongwith the appellant nos. 2 and 3 after the death of the sole appellant Most Jatni. In the substitution petition which has been filed by Dhurpati Devi, one of the daughters deceased appellant no.1 Kailash Prasad, the fact has been disclosed that the deceased appellant no.1 had other heirs also being one more daughter and the descendants of another pre-deceased daughter. It has been further stated that the remaining heirs have refused to join the appeal after getting themselves substituted in place of the deceased appellant no.1 and under this circumstance the prayer for substitution has been made by only one daughter Dhurpati Devi of the deceased appellant no.1 Kailash Prasad. The contention on behalf of the respondents that the prayer for substitution by one of the heirs of the deceased cannot be allowed without bringing the other heirs also on record has no substance in view of the principle enunciated in 18 Patna High Court FA No.68 of 1987 dt.31-10-2013 this regard by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Jagarnath Singh Vs Srimati Singhshan Kuer reported in AIR1984 PLJR 217 where it has been laid down as follows:- “…From the discussions of the several Supreme Court decisions made above, it emerges that when one or more heirs of the deceased defendant or respondent are on record, then the estate is fully represented in the suit or the appeal, as the case may be, and the suit or the appeal will not abate for not bringing on record the other left outside. This will also include a case where some of the heirs at their own initiative are brought on the record of the case. Such heirs, who applied for bringing on record, would represent the entire estate. It may also include a case where through oversight or on account of such doubt as to who the heirs are, any heir is left out to be brought on record, still the estate of the deceased is fully represented by the heirs brought on record. The left out heirs may subsequently apply to be brought on record, but there will be no abatement…” (Emphasis supplied)

26. It is not the case of the respondents that any special case could have been put forward by the left out heirs and their non- substitution could deprive them an opportunity to present such case in the proceeding. However, in view of definite stand of the applicant 19 Patna High Court FA No.68 of 1987 dt.31-10-2013 Dhurpati Devi that the remaining heirs have declined to join her for substitution in place of deceased appellant no.1, it is not for the respondents to insist that the left out heirs must be made parties to the appeal before allowing the prayer of the applicant Dhurpati Devi to be substituted. As held in the Full Bench decision, it is always open to the left out heirs to apply to be brought on record but their non- impleadment will not cause the appeal to abate for the reason.

27. It has not been denied by the respondents that the applicant Dhurpati Devi is not the daughter of the deceased substituted appellant no.1. It is the case of the applicant that she is a rustic lady and was not conversant with procedure of law. From the facts of the case and the submissions of the parties, it is manifest that a serious question with regard to valuable right, title and interest to the immovable properties is involved in this appeal. As such without taking a too technical view of the matter, as insisted on behalf of the respondents, it is deemed fit and proper that the delay in filing the petition for substitution be condoned and abatement be set aside and the prayer for substitution be allowed. It is, accordingly, so done and the applicant Dhurpati Devi is substituted in place of the deceased substituted appellant no.1Kailash Prasad after expunging his name from the memo of appeal. The interlocutory applications (I.A.No.6460/13 and 6461/13) are, accordingly, allowed. 20 Patna High Court FA No.68 of 1987 dt.31-10-2013

28. It would next be essential to consider the interlocutory application (I.A.No. 7185/13) filed on behalf of the respondents praying for condonation of delay in filing the cross objection. It has been stated in the petition that the learned counsel for the respondents was carrying the impression that the cross objection has already been filed on behalf of the respondents against the findings on issue nos. 3 to 6 but during the course of preparation for argument it has been discovered that no such cross objection has been filed. The prayer for condonation of delay therefore, has been made on the ground of ‘accidental lack of memory’ on the part of the counsel. It appears from the record that the cross objection has been filed on behalf of the respondents on 27.09.2013 when the appeal was placed for hearing. From the facts of the case it appears that the suit was filed by the plaintiff for declaration of her title over the suit land. It is the case of the plaintiff that the two sale deeds and one gift deed in favour of the defendants are illegal and void documents and have never been acted upon. The defendants have contested the prayer of the plaintiff and asserted that the aforesaid three deeds are legal and valid documents and have been acted upon. The trial court after scrutinizing the pleadings and evidence of the parties has however come to the finding that the aforesaid three deeds are illegal and invalid and have never been operative documents. But, the suit has been dismissed on the 21 Patna High Court FA No.68 of 1987 dt.31-10-2013 ground of maintainability for want of cause of action as well as bar of limitation.

29. It would seemly to take in to notice the provision of Order 41 Rule 22 CPC.

22. Upon hearing, respondent may object to decree as if he had preferred separate appeal-(1) Any respondent, though he may not have appealed from any part of the decree, may not only support the decree but may also state that the finding against him in the Court below in respect of any issue ought to have been in his favour; and may also take any cross-objection to the decree which he could have taken by way of appeal, provided he has filed such objection in the Appellate Court within one month from the date of service on him or his pleader of notice of the day fixed for hearing the appeal, or within such further time as the Appellate Court may see fit to allow.

30. Clearly according to this provision, when the suit has been dismissed in entirety but certain findings have been recorded against the defendant, there is no need to file a cross objection assailing those findings and the defendant is entitled to support the 22 Patna High Court FA No.68 of 1987 dt.31-10-2013 decree and simultaneously also establish that the findings recorded against him should have been in his favour. It is only when in a case where the reversal of the finding recorded against the defendant would necessarily involve variation in the decree impugned in the appeal that the defendant is required to file a cross objection. This principle has been succinctly elucidated by the Apex Court in the case of Banarsi Vs Ram Phal, AIR 2003 SC 1989.

31. The learned senior counsel on behalf of the appellant has also accepted this position in law. As such, the defendants-respondent are not enjoined to file a cross objection in order to challenge the findings against them on issue nos.3 to 6 which they can do even in absence of a cross objection by them. Thus taking a liberal view in the matter the cross objection filed on behalf of the respondents on

27.09.2013 is accepted on record after condoning the delay in filing the same. 31 A. For convenience, the parties to this appeal, hereinafter shall be described by the position held by them or their predecessors- in-interest in the suit.

32. Coming to the merits of the appeal it is admitted by the parties that the sole plaintiff Jatni (now deceased through L.R.) and the defendants are descendants of common ancestor Maniraj Bhagat who had three sons namely Mukund Bhagat, Tapeshwar Bhagat and 23 Patna High Court FA No.68 of 1987 dt.31-10-2013 Bisheshwar Bhagat. There is no dispute between the parties that all the aforesaid three sons of Maniraj Bhagat had separated. Tapeshwar Bhagat had a son Ram Prasad Bhagat who had a son Sukhdeo Bhagat who is defendant no.1 (now deceased) in the suit. His son Raghuwar Bhagat is defendant no.2 and son of Raghuwar Bhagat namely Jai Prakash Bhagat is defendant no.3.

33. Bisheshwar Bhagat had two sons Narsingh Bhagat and Harinandan Bhagat @ Harihar Bhagat. The plaintiff Most Jatni ( now deceased through L.R.) is widow of Narsingh Bhagat. It is the case of the plaintiff that although there had been separation between Narsingh Bhagat and Harinandan Bhagat but there has been no partition by metes and bounds of their properties. The plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration of her title over the suit land described in Schedule II to IV with the plea that the two sale deeds dated 09.02.1967 and 14.08.1969 in favour of defendant no.2 and 1 respectively and a gift deed dated

29.04.1971 in favour of defendant no.3 are forged, fabricated, illegal, void and inoperative documents. The defendants have resisted the claim of the plaintiff asserting the legality and validity of the aforesaid three deeds and claimed their title and possession over the lands mentioned in Schedule II to IV on that basis.

34. From the perusal of the plaint it appears that the Schedule I of the plaint contains the description of the entire properties of the 24 Patna High Court FA No.68 of 1987 dt.31-10-2013 family of Bisheshwar Bhagat in which the plaintiff has claimed to have her share as mentioned therein. The property described in Schedule II is the property subject matter of the sale deed dated

09.02.1967 in favour of the defendant no.2. The schedule III contains the description of the properties subject matter of the sale deed dated

14.08.1969 in favour of the defendant no.1 Sukhdeo Bhagat and the Schedule IV contains the description of the properties subject matter of the gift deed dated 29.04.1971 in favour of defendant no.3 Jai Prakash Bhagat. From the description of the area of the lands in Schedule I and the plaintiff’s claim of share therein, it becomes manifest that the plaintiff has got about 5 Bighas and 19 Katha in her share. This fact has not been denied by the defendants in the written statement. The total area of the lands in Schedule II to IV said to have been transferred by the plaintiff in favour of the defendants comes to about 5 Bighas 14 Katha .

35. The plaintiff is admittedly an illiterate rustic woman who has lost her husband much earlier and her only son later on also. She was in her sixties when the three deeds of transfer in question are said to have been executed in between the years 1967-1971. It is the case of the plaintiff that those three deeds of transfer have been fabricated by the defendant no.1 who took benefit of her faith and reliance upon him and duped her. It is her specific case that she never executed the 25 Patna High Court FA No.68 of 1987 dt.31-10-2013 three deeds of transfer in question in favour of the defendants and was completely kept in dark regarding the nature of those transactions. It is also her case that she had never any need to raise funds to meet her necessities by selling away her lands; and she had also no love and affection for the defendant no.3 for which she could have gifted her lands in his favour and the story of his services to her his only a hoax as defendant no.3 was only a small child in the year 1971 when the alleged deed is said to have been executed by her in his favour. It has also been pleaded that the three deeds of transfer were never given effect to and the plaintiff has all along been in possession of her properties.

36. The defendants in their written statement though have denied the allegation of the plaintiff but have not disclosed the necessities of the plaintiff to execute those deeds. In this regard it is the case of the plaintiffs that she has sufficient income from the produce of her lands which generate surplus funds in her hands enabling her even to acquire further property by accepting mortgages and also by purchase. Besides the witnesses of the plaintiffs, even the witnesses examined on behalf of the defendants have also deposed that the suit lands are fertile lands where cash crops are also grown. The D.W.8 Bhola Bhagat, D.W.10 Babulal Prasad and even defendant no.2 examined as D.W.3 have accepted that the suit lands including 26 Patna High Court FA No.68 of 1987 dt.31-10-2013 the other lands in the village are fertile lands where several crops are grown. There is also no pleading by the defendants or evidence on record to show that the plaintiff who had become widow in the year 1937 ( as per the case of the defendants) had ever sold her lands prior to the execution of the two sale deeds(Ext.A and Ext.A/1) in question. To the contrary, the plaintiff has brought on record several mortgage deeds and sale deeds to corroborate her case that she had never sold her lands but made only acquisitions of more lands throughout. Ext.2 to 2H are mortgage deeds between the years 1954 to 1972 which show that the plaintiff has advanced money to different persons by accepting their lands in mortgage. Further through the sale deeds (Ext.3 and Ext.3/B) the plaintiff appears to have acquired substantial agricultural lands. The consideration of these evidence leave no room for doubt that the plaintiff has been living in affluence and there was no need for her to sell out her property including her homestead land in the year 1967-1969 in favour of the defendants.

37. Ext.A/1 is the sale deed dated 09.02.1967 said to have been executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant no.2. This sale deed relates to transfer of 9 Dhurs of homestead land by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant no.2 for consideration of Rs.50/- only. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant was the Secretary of the Multi Purpose Cooperative Society of her village and as 27 Patna High Court FA No.68 of 1987 dt.31-10-2013 Harinandan Bhgat @ Harihar Bhagat had already executed a gift deed donating his land to the Society for the purpose of construction of a godown, the defendant no.1 Sukhdeo Bhagat prevailed upon the plaintiff to also gift some land in favour of the Society, creating impression that she would be put to loss, if she failed to do so. It is her further case that on the behest of defendant no.1 she accompanied the defendant no.1 to the Registry Office and executed a gift deed (Ext.L.) on 09.02.1967 in favour of the Multi Purpose Cooperative Society with regard to 13 ½ dhur of her land. In her deposition as P.W.19, the plaintiff has stated that the defendant no.1 Sukhdeo Bhagat in the process of registration obtained her thumb impression on two plain stamp papers on the pretext of execution of the gift deed.

38. The defendant no.2 examined as D.W.23 has accepted in paragraph 26 of his deposition that the gift deed (Ext.L) in favour of the society from the plaintiff was got executed by his father (defendant no.1) Sukhdeo Bhagat. Defendant no.2 has further also accepted that he was present when the gift deed was executed. He has further deposed that the sale deed (Ext.A/1) in his name was also executed on the same day by Most Jatni for adjusting the loan of Rs.50/- which she had taken from his father. The perusal of gift deed (Ext.L) shows that it is not on stamp paper as it was executed in favour of a Cooperative Society but the perusal of Ext.A/1 shows that it has been 28 Patna High Court FA No.68 of 1987 dt.31-10-2013 executed on two stamp papers and has been scribed by Ayodhya Prasad. The scribe Ayodhya Prasad has been examined as D.W.3. In his cross examination he has accepted that he was not acquainted with Most Jatni although he has stated in the examination- in chief that he has scribed the sale deed Ext.A/1 for which Most Jatni had purchased stamp from the stamp vendor Mahboob Hasan in his presence. Mahboob Hasan has been examined as D.W.1 and he has not stated that Most Jatni has purchased the stamp paper from him rather he has deposed that the sale deed (Ext.A/1) was scribed by Ayodhya Prasad in his presence and he (Mahboob Hasan) appeared as a witness on the said sale deed. However, in paragraph 15 of his cross examination this witness though has accepted that Most Jatni had executed a gift deed (Ext.L)in favour of the Cooperative Society but in paragraph 17 he has stated that he did not remember that on that day any other deed was executed by Most Jatni. This statement of D.W.1 assumes importance as he has in his examination-in-chief has accepted to have appeared as witness both on the gift deed( Ext.L) and the sale deed (Ext.A/1), claimed by the defendants to have been executed on the same day i.e. 09.02.1967. Not only this the defendant no.2 examined as D.W.3 has accepted in his deposition in paragraph 24 that he was present on the occasions of execution of all the three deeds in question by Most Jatni but very peculiarly in paragraph 17 he 29 Patna High Court FA No.68 of 1987 dt.31-10-2013 has stated that no deed was scribed by Ram Ayodhya or Mahboob Hasan in his presence. These inconsistent facts, coupled with the meager amount of Rs. 50/- by way of consideration for sale of 9 dhurs of homestead land which according to the plaintiff is a valuable land just in front of her house and not controverted by the defendants, corroborate the case of the plaintiff that she did not execute the sale deed (Ext.A/1) in favour of the defendant no.2 and the said deed has been fabricated by the defendant no.1. The absence of any cogent reason for sale of her 9 dhurs of homestead land of the plaintiff for a meager sum of Rs.50/- on the same day when she gifted 13 ½ dhurs land in favour of Cooperative Society only strengthens this view.

39. Ext.A is the sale deed dated 14.08.1969 said to have been executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant no.1 Sukhdeo Bhagat and compulsorily registered on 10.04.1970. The plaintiff has denied the execution of this sale deed also and has alleged that this document had also been fabricated by the defendant no.1 Sukhdeo Bhagat on the basis of the thumb impression of the plaintiff fraudulently obtained by him. She has also denied to have received any amount much less Rs.8,000/- as claimed by the defendants and has further denied to have any notice or knowledge of the compulsory registration of the sale deed (Ext.A). In this regard it is noticeable that the defendants in the written statement have not given any cogent 30 Patna High Court FA No.68 of 1987 dt.31-10-2013 reason or explanation for refusal by the plaintiff to accept the execution of the sale deed (Ext.A) although they have pleaded that the plaintiff had voluntarily got the said sale deed scribed and accepted Rs.8,000/- out of total consideration money of Rs.10,000/- and granted a receipt. Only explanation given in this regard by the defendant no.2 in his deposition as D.W.23 is that on 14.08.1969 it became late for the registration of the sale deed (Ext.A). But in absence of any other reason as to why the plaintiff did not turn up on the next following day for accepting the execution before the Registering Authority, it is difficult to believe the case of the defendants in this regard. There is also no convincing evidence to corroborate the payment of Rs.8,000/- to the plaintiff by the defendants. Although the defendant no.2 in paragraph 10 of his deposition as D.W.23 has come out with the case that Most Jatni has taken Rs.8,000/- from his father by way of loan for giving the said amount to her nephew but this fact has not been stated in the written statement and no purpose for grant of this amount by way of loan has been disclosed rather it has been averred in paragraph 24 of the written statement that Most Jatni had received Rs. 8,000/- and had granted a receipt in that regard. The said receipt has been adduced in evidence as Ext.N and bears the date 10.04.1969 but there is no whisper of the loan. The thumb impression of Most Jatni on this receipt (Ext.N) appears on the left side margin which is against 31 Patna High Court FA No.68 of 1987 dt.31-10-2013 the usual and prevailing practice. The recital in this receipt shows that Rs. 8,000/- has been received by Most Jatni by way of consideration money for the sale. The perusal of the stamp paper on which the sale deed (Ext.A) has been executed shows that the stamp papers have been purchased on 19.05.1969 through Mahboob Hasan in the name of Most Jatni and the execution portion show the execution to have been made on 14.08.1969. It is not the case of the defendants either in the written statement or in the deposition that after granting the receipt (Ext.N) for Rs. 8,000/-, purchasing the stamp on 19.05.1969 and executing the sale deed (Ext.A) on 14.08.1969, she fell in clutches of some other persons due to which she declined to accept the execution of sale deed before the Registering Authority. In view of the denial of any conscious execution of this sale deed by the plaintiff and in absence of any cogent evidence on behalf of the defendants regarding the circumstances which led them to adopt the procedure for compulsory registration of this sale deed, the preponderance of probability definitely lies in favour of the plaintiff. Depositions of the witnesses of the defendants in this regard also do not still confidence regarding the valid conscious execution of this deed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant no.1.

40. Ext.P is the gift deed dated 29.04.1971 which is said to have been executed by the plaintiff Most Jatni in favour of the 32 Patna High Court FA No.68 of 1987 dt.31-10-2013 defendant no.3 Jai Prakash who is son of defendant no.2 and grand son of defendant no.1. By this gift deed, the plaintiff is said to have transferred her two Bighas , 10 Kathas of land in favour of defendant no.3. In this regard the plaintiffs’ case is that she had no love and affection for defendant no.3 and the story of defendant no.3 serving the plaintiff as mentioned in the gift deed is also bogus as defendant no.3 was then only a child of 5-7 years. On behalf of the defendants, the horoscope of the defendant no.3 has been brought in evidence as Ext.F which shows that the defendant no.3 was born on 13.02.1964. The defendant no.2, in his deposition as D.W.3, has accepted that Most Jatni had only a general relation with his father (defendant no.1) and she had no particular love and affection for them. Although in the same paragraph 25 he has further stated that she had affection for his son (defendant no.3). It will be pertinent here to take into notice the case of the defendants that Most Jatni had refused to accept the execution of the sale deed in favour of the defendant no.1 in the year 1969 which compelled the defendants to opt for the procedure of compulsory registration of the said sale deed. In all probabilities, therefore, the relationship between the defendants and Most Jatni thereafter must have become bitter or at least would not have remained cordial. As such, the execution of the gift deed by Most Jatni for her remaining substantial portion of land in favour of defendant no.3 out 33 Patna High Court FA No.68 of 1987 dt.31-10-2013 of love and affection only one year after the compulsory registration of the deed does not appear to be convincing. The witnesses examined on behalf of the defendants have also failed to explain the circumstances under which Most Jatni was so pleased with the services of the defendant no.3 towards her to transfer by gift two Bighas 10 Kathas of her land in his favour rather the D.W.8 in paragraph 4 of his deposition has accepted that the defendant no.3 now serves Most Jatni after he became wise which is not believable in view of the filing of the suit by the plaintiff with definite allegation of fraud and fabrication. Similar statement has also been made by D.W.10, who however has also stated in paragraph 20 of his cross examination on 19.06.1986 that the defendant no.3 Jai Prakash is aged 18 years old which shows the defendant no.3 was not born in the year 1971 when the gift deed in his favour was executed. The cumulative outcome of these facts and circumstances gives credence to the case of the plaintiff.

41. At this juncture it would also be pertinent to examine the rival claim of the parties with regard to possession over the lands mentioned in Schedule II to IV of the plaint. The plaintiff has stated in the plaint that she is continuing in possession over her lands as before and the defendants have not come in possession over the same on the basis of the three deeds of transfer in question. Besides 34 Patna High Court FA No.68 of 1987 dt.31-10-2013 adducing oral evidence, the plaintiff has also produced the rent receipts (Ext.1 Series) with regard to the suit lands which range from 1960 up to 1983-84. These rent receipts show that the plaintiff have been paying rent of the suit lands even after the alleged execution of the three deeds of transfer in question. On behalf of the defendants also rent receipts (Ext.B Series) have been brought in evidence but out of that only Ext.B22/B23, B24/B26 are in the name of defendant no.3 Jai Praksh Bhagat and all of them had been issued in the year 1986 much after the filing of the suit. The other rent receipts are not in the name of the defendant nos. 1 to 3 and it has also been found by the learned court below that the same do not relate to the lands in dispute. The learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent has not pointed out any evidence on record which shows that the names of the defendants have been mutated with regard to the lands acquired by them through the three transfer deeds in question and the defendants have been paying rent to the State of Bihar even before the filing of the suit by the plaintiff. There is no explanation on behalf of the defendants as to how Most Jatni has continued to pay rent to the State of Bihar even after she, according to the case of the defendants, voluntarily transferred those lands in favour of the defendants. The learned court below has also analyzed oral evidence of the parties on the issue of possession and has refused to rely upon the statements of the 35 Patna High Court FA No.68 of 1987 dt.31-10-2013 defendants’ witnesses in this regard. D.W.8 Bhola Bhagat has stated in his examination-in-chief that the defendant Raghuwar is in possession of 15 Katha , 6 Katha and 6-7 Katha of land of Most Jatni for the last 15-16 years and is also in possession of 9 Dhurs of dih- basgit (homestead) land but in cross examination he has accepted that at present the demarcating ridges in the lands are not there and have been removed by the Kailash and Paras (co-sharers of Most Jatni) but against whom no action had been taken by Sukhdeo, Raghuwar or Jai Prakash. He has however also stated in paragraph 13 of his cross examination that the possession of Most Jatni over her lands is continuing as before. D.W.10 Babulal Prasd has also accepted the absence of demarcating ridges in the disputed lands which is against the case of the defendants that the plaintiff Most Jatni had already partitioned her share from Harinandan Bhagat @ Harihar Bhagat. D.W.13 has also made similar statement regarding the absence of demarcating ridges, over the suit lands and has accepted the possession of Kailash and Paras (co-sharers of Most Jatani) over the same which is against the case of the defendants that they have never been dispossessed. The defendant no.2, examined as D.W.23 has, though claimed to be in possession over the suit lands and got his name mutated over the same in the year 1980 has accepted that he has no document to support the said mutation. On behalf of the 36 Patna High Court FA No.68 of 1987 dt.31-10-2013 defendant-respondents in this appeal, no special feature about the evidence of the defendant witnesses on the point of possession has been pointed out which has escaped the notice of the trial court and as such there is no ground to differ with the finding of the appellate court on the basis of the scrutiny of the oral evidence on the point of possession.

42. Manifestly the defendants have led their claim of title and possession over the suit lands on the basis of the three transfer deeds said to have been executed in their favour by Most Jatni who was undisputedly a rustic illiterate widow lady in her late sixties when the said deeds were said to have been executed. It is also apparent from the comparison of the area of the lands mentioned in Schedule I on the one land and Schedule II to IV on the other that a major portion including the homestead land of the plaintiff Most Jatni has been acquired by the defendants by transfer within a span of 4 years. Considering these facts as well as the position of such a woman in our society it is incumbent upon the defendants, who are interested in upholding the transactions, to establish the transactions to be fair and equitable, and also that the contents of the transfer deeds have been explained to her and she came to know and thoroughly understood the meaning and effect of the deeds she executed. From the discussions and scan of evidence as above made, it is beyond cavil that the 37 Patna High Court FA No.68 of 1987 dt.31-10-2013 defendants have failed to establish the sudden need of the plaintiff Most Jatni to transfer almost her entire properties in favour of the defendants; also that she knew and understood the nature and effect of the transactions before she executed the transfer deeds and that the transactions have been given effect to. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant-respondents however, instead of striving to establish the incorrectness and illegality in the findings of the trial court in this regard, and the validity of the transactions of sales and gift in question, has laid much stress on the fact that the findings by the learned court below in this regard are redundant in view of the finding that the suit as framed is not maintainable and is also barred by limitation. However, I do not find force in this submission in view of the express provision contained in Order 14 Rule 2(i) C.P.C. requiring the court to pronounce judgment on all issues. The trial court has elaborately discussed the evidence of the parties and thereafter has come to the finding that the three transfers deeds in question are invalid , illegal, void , without consideration, fraudulent and inoperative and the plaintiff has got full right, title and interest over the suit lands. I do not find any valid reason to overturn this finding, which is accordingly, upheld.

43. The learned counsel for the defendant-respondents has vehemently argued, supporting the finding by the trial court in this 38 Patna High Court FA No.68 of 1987 dt.31-10-2013 regard, that the suit is barred by limitation. It has been urged that in view of the statement of the plaintiff examined as P.W.19 in paragraph 18 of her deposition, the starting point of limitation must be reckoned from 4 years after the date of execution of the first document of transfer i.e. the sale deed dated 09.02.1967 (Ext.A/1) and the suit having been filed in the year 1977 is therefore clearly barred by limitation. It has also been argued that in view of the acceptance by the plaintiff in paragraph 32 of her deposition, the conclusion is obvious that the suit has not been filed by the plaintiff but by Harihar Bhagat who was her husband’s brother and as such the finding by the court below regarding absence of cause of action and bar of limitation must be upheld.

44. From the perusal of the plaint it transpires that the verification of the plaint has been done by the plaintiff herself and the affidavit in support of the contents of the plaint has also been sworn by the plaintiff. This fact has not been denied in the written statement by the defendants and there is no specific plea that the verification and affidavit has not been done by the plaintiff Most Jatni himself. Even in his deposition as D.W.23, the defendant no.2 has not made any statement denying the filing of the suit by the plaintiff herself and challenging the genuineness of the verification and affidavit accompanying the plaint. No evidence aliunde could be pointed out on 39 Patna High Court FA No.68 of 1987 dt.31-10-2013 behalf of the defendant-respondents in support of this contention that the plaintiff herself did not file the plaint of the suit and she did not make verification and affidavit; and the entire objection in this regard has rested on the statement of the plaintiff in paragraph 32 of her deposition. The trial court has also relied on the said statement and has come to the finding that the plaintiff had no intention to file the suit and her thumb impression mark on the verification portion is suspicious.

45. As stated above there is no specific pleading by the defendant that the plaint has not been filed by the plaintiff Most Jatni herself and the verification and affidavit accompanying the plaint are not genuine. To the contrary it appears from paragraph 11 of the written statement that the defendants have accepted the suit to have been filed by the plaintiff but at the instance of Harihar Bhagat and his sons who are said to have borne the cost of litigation. Therefore in absence of specific pleading and evidence thereto by the defendant that the verification and the affidavit accompanying the plaint are not genuine no third case could have been made out, as done by the trial court, that the thumb impression of the plaintiff on verification portion is suspicious. The statements made in the plaint considered with the entire statements in the deposition by the plaintiff do not leave room for doubt that the suit has been filed by the plaintiff who is fully 40 Patna High Court FA No.68 of 1987 dt.31-10-2013 acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case and is not a tutored or set up person. The consideration also cannot be lost sight of that the plaintiff is a rustic widow lady and there is nothing unusual in her visit to the lawyer alongwith a close relative (deceased husband’s brother) to file a suit, alarmed and aggrieved by the claim of the defendants over major portion of her lands on the basis of three transfer deeds which according to her she never executed. Instead of taking holistic view of the matter, the learned court below has definitely made out a third case in non-suiting her in view of her solitary statement that she was accompanied by Harihar Bhagat in the conference with her lawyer. The finding that the suit as framed is not maintainable and the plaintiff has no cause of action for the suit is therefore not sustainable and fit to be overturned and it is so done accordingly.

46. The learned court below has further held that the suit is barred by limitation in view of the statement made by the plaintiff in paragraph 18 of her deposition as P.W.19. The learned counsel for the defendant respondent has also placed heavy reliance on this paragraph in support of his submission that the suit is barred by limitation. It has been argued that the limitation has started to run against the plaintiff from the date when she acquired the knowledge of the transfer deeds and she, in paragraph 18, has accepted that she has got the knowledge 41 Patna High Court FA No.68 of 1987 dt.31-10-2013 after 4 years of the execution of the deeds. It would be appropriate to take into notice the relevant portion of the statements made in paragraph 17,18 and 19 by the plaintiff in her deposition as follows:- Para 17. lknk LVkEi ij eq>ls /kks[kk ls fu’kku ysdj lq[knso Hkxr us vius iksrk t; izdk’k ds uke ls esjk [ksr 2-5 fcxgk oS;ukek fy[kk fy;k ;gh eq>s ckn esa ekyqe gqvk eq>s dHkh Hkh viuh dksbZ tehu nsus dh bPNk ugh Fkh eSus dHkh Hkh lq[knso ls ;k j?kqohj ls vius bPNk t; izdk”k ds uke ls tehu fy[kus ds fy, izxV ugh fd;k A Para 18. tc /kks[kk nsdj mUgksus fy[kk fy;k rc pkj o’kksZ ds ckn bl /kks[kk dh tkudkjh gbZA rc eSus mu dkxtksa dh udy gfjuanu …vius nsoj‰ ds lkFk tkdj Nijk ls fudyok;kA rc eSus dqy dkxt i<+ok;k rc eq>s ekyqe gqvk fd lq[knso us esjs lkFk /kks[kk fd;k gS----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------- Para 19. rc vkdj eSus ;g eqdnek nk;j fd;k A It would also be relevant to notice the statement made by the plaintiff in paragraph 28 of the plaint as follows:- Para 28. ;g fd xr lky yxHkx ,d o’kZ gqvk rks eqnbZ;k dks vQokgu ekyqe gqvk fd eqnkysg ua0 1 o 2 us eqnbZ;k dh tehu dk tkyh Qjsch dkxt rS;kj djk fy;k gS rks eqnbZ;k us mldk udy ctkIrs eaxk;k vkSj mldks i<okus ij irk yxkus ij eqnkysg gedk mij fy[kk Qjsc ekyqe gqvk ---^^ In reply to the aforesaid paragraph the defendants in the written statement have stated in paragraph 34 as follows:- Para 34. ;g fd O;ku nQk 28 vthZ nkoh >wBk gS vkSj oukoVh gS---^^ 42 Patna High Court FA No.68 of 1987 dt.31-10-2013

47. From the pleadings as mentioned above it is clear that the plaintiff has specifically stated that she acquired the knowledge of the transfer deeds one year before the filing of the suit and this has not been specifically denied by the defendants in the written statement where they have chosen to make a general denial. There is also no other statement by the defendants that the plaintiff had the knowledge of the transfer deeds three years prior to the filing of the suit. From her deposition in paragraph 18 as mentioned above it is not specific that she had acquired the knowledge of the first sale deed after four years of the date of its execution i.e. 09.02.1967 rather it appears more convincing that the plaintiff has stated to have acquired the knowledge of all the three deeds, four years after the execution of the last deed in favour of Jai Prakash, which admittedly is said to have been executed on 29.04.1971. Noticeably no question on this fact has been put by the defendants in cross examination to the plaintiff nor there has even been a suggestion put to the plaintiff that she had knowledge of the three transfer deeds from the date of their execution. The law is now well settled, in view of the provisions of Order 8 Rule 3 and 5, that in absence of specific denial, it must be assumed that the said fact has been admitted by the defendant. It would not have been sufficient for the defendants in the written statement to deny in general terms the specific statement of the plaintiff regarding acquisition of 43 Patna High Court FA No.68 of 1987 dt.31-10-2013 the knowledge of the three deeds in question and it was also incumbent upon the defendants to cross examine the plaintiff in view of her statement in paragraph 17,18 and 19 in her examination-in-chief . It also appears from the impugned judgment that no separate issue on the point of limitation has been framed.

48. From the plaint it is clear that the plaintiff has filed the suit seeking the relief for declaration of her title over the suit properties. No prayer has been made for cancellation or setting aside the three transfer deeds. As it has already been found that the plaintiff has succeeded in establishing that the three transfer deeds in question have never been consciously executed by her and she had no knowledge of the transactions through those deeds. The plaintiff has also succeeded in establishing her possession over the suit lands which leads to the inevitable inference that those deeds did not become operative. As such, the suit would be governed by Article 58 of the Limitation Act in view of the law laid down by a division bench of this Court in almost similar circumstances in the case of Bibi Saleha Vs Zakariya Khan, AIR 1950 Patna 247. This provision prescribes a period of three years for filing a suit for declaration and the starting point of limitation is 3 years from the date when the right to sue first accrues. In paragraph 28 and 34 of the plaint, it has been asserted by the plaintiff that she got the knowledge of the deeds of transfer in question 44 Patna High Court FA No.68 of 1987 dt.31-10-2013 only in the year 1976. The defendants have not specifically denied this assertion and they have also led no evidence to establish that the plaintiff had the knowledge of the transfer deeds even before 3 years of the date of filing of the suit. Under these circumstances, it is difficult to hold the suit to be barred by limitation only on the basis of a stray statement in paragraph 18 of her deposition which, as aforediscussed, has the propensity to a contrary interpretation when considered conjointly with the statements made in preceding as well as following paragraph of the deposition. Even the consideration money of Rs.2,000/- with regard to the sale deed Ext.E which has been compulsorily registered has also admittedly remained unpaid and it is not the case of the defendants that any notice was ever issued to the plaintiff Most Jatni to receive the remaining consideration money before the defendants had chosen to adopt the procedure for compulsory registration of the said sale deed. All these facts and circumstances lead to the inevitable conclusion that the plaintiff Most Jatni had no knowledge of the three transfer deeds three years prior to the filing of the suit. The learned court below has not considered the relevant facts and materials before holding the suit to be barred by limitation. The dismissal of the suit by the learned court below on this ground definitely erroneous and is therefore set aside.

49. From the facts asserted by the plaintiff in the plaint as 45 Patna High Court FA No.68 of 1987 dt.31-10-2013 well as in her deposition, it is apparent that the plaintiff was not required to seek a declaration against the three deeds of transfer in question as she has come out with the case that she never executed those deeds and was althrough kept in dark of the transactions through those deeds. After scrutiny of evidence on record, it has been found that the plaintiff’s mental assent was wanting in execution of those deeds that is to say she never legally executed those deeds. As such the plaintiff’s right to obtain a declaration of title over the suit lands on the basis of the finding of fact regarding the invalidity of the three transfer deeds in question has remained unfettered by absence of the relief of declaration against those deeds.

50. In view of the findings and discussions as made above, there is no need to pass orders on the interlocutory application (I.A.No.6459/13) for amendment in the plaint and interlocutory application (I.A.No. 6709/13) for adducing additional evidence filed on behalf of the appellants and these interlocutory applications are, accordingly, disposed of.

51. In result, the finding by the learned court below with regard to the plaintiffs’ title over the suit land is upheld and the findings that the suit is barred by limitation and also not maintainable in absence of cause of action are set aside.

52. This appeal is, accordingly, allowed and cross objection 46 Patna High Court FA No.68 of 1987 dt.31-10-2013 filed on behalf of the respondents is dismissed. The T.S.No.109/77 is decreed. B.Roy/Nitesh (V. Nath, J)