1. This second appeal is directed against the final judgment and order of the district court, beed, in regular civil appeal no. 84 of 1997 dated 19.04.2010, thereby confirming the judgment and order of the learned civil judge, senior division, beed, in r.c.s. nO. 172 of 1990.

2. The background facts of the case are as under :

3. The suit land s. nO. 66/aa/2 (new g.nO.230) of khadkighat, taluka and district beed was originally owned by one keshav narayan deshmukh. It was being cultivated by one rangnath namdeo khadke, the father of plaintiff no.1 and 2 and husband of plaintiff no.3. According to the plaintiff, rangnath was tenant of the said land and became protected tenant and certificate was issued in his name accordingly by the revenue authorities, whereas the contention in this regard from defendants side is that, rangnath exchanged his land with keshav narayan deshmukh and as such became owner of the land. rAngnath was having two wives namely kalabai who died in 1980 and second wife parvatibai @ parubai. Plaintiff nos.1 and 2 are sons of parvtibai @ parubai and said parvatibai is also plaintiff no.3 in the suit. Defendant no.1 bhimrao kondiba bhosale is the founder and chief of the bank of swami shikshan sanstha, khadkighat. Said sanstha runs a high school and college at beed. Defendant no.1 is influential person having contacts with highly influential officers. Defendant no. 2pravin is his son whereas defendant madhav is his close relative and is also teacher in the school run by swami shikshan sanstha. After the death of rangnath, his two wives were also served as peon in the sanstha run by defendant no.1.

4. According to the plaintiffs, defendant no.1 took disadvantage of the helpless condition of the widows of rangnath. Deceased kalabai and plaintiff no.3 were illiterate and rustic women and were in need of strong support after the death of their husband. Defendant no. 1, however, took disadvantage of their pitiable condition and started influencing and dominating them. They were brought under pressure and all the relevant documents were kept by defendant no.1 in his custody.

5. The defendant no.1 obtained a registered saledeed in respect of suit land from the widows of late rangnath i.e. Kalabai and plaintiffs nos.1 and 2 on 23.03.1978 without paying them any consideration. The saledeed was got executed in the name of defendant no.2 and 3 in which plaintiff nos.1 and 2 were shown as minor vendors under the guardianship of kalabai and plaintiff no.3 parvatibai was shown as covendor. In fact kalabai was step mother of plaintiff nos.1 and 2 and during existence of their real mother parvatibai @ parubai, kalabai was having no authority to sell the suit land and she could not have been guardian of the minor plaintiffs.

6. According to the plaintiffs, no consideration was paid to the plaintiffs for the delivery of suit land though it was erroneously stated in the sale deed that rs.11,000/was paid was consideration. The defendants in collusion with each other also got forceful possession over the suit land which was having market value more than rs.50,000/at relevant time. There was no legal necessity to alienate the suit land. The said sale deed which defendant no.1 obtained through plaintiff and deceased kalabai in the name of defendant nos.2 and 3 was thus obtained by exercising undue influence upon them and as such the said sale deed is null and void and it was also without consideration. nO permission of the court was obtained to sell the suit land. Similarly, no permission of the collector was obtained as per the provisions of section 50b of the h.t.a.l. Act, 1950. The plaintiffs, therefore, claimed the sale deed dated 23.05.1978 be declared null and void and not binding on them and that the defendants be directed to deliver possession of the suit land to them.

7. The defendants resisted the claim by filing written statement at exh.24. As already stated they submitted that deceased rangnath became owner of th