1. In this suit which is the subject matter of this appeal the Plaintiff asked for a declaration that the sale deed executed on 11th July, 1914, by one Mosammat Sureba Kuer in favour of Sitaram was farzi, without consideration and without legal necessity and Was not binding upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed that after the death of defendant No. 1, Mosammat Parkalo Kuer, he was entitled to the properties as the next reversioner. It was alleged by the plaintiff that the widow, Mosammat Sureba Kuer, executed the sale deed in favour of Sitaram, father of defendants 2 and 3, in order to defeat the plaintiffs claim. It was further alleged that the document was farzi and collusive and no title passed to Sitaram. It was stated by the plaintiff that defendants 2 to 4 had executed a mortgage bond in respect of the properties covered by the sale deed in favour of the defendant No. 1, Mosammat Parkalo Kuer, daughter of Mosammat Sureba Kuer. The suit was contested by defendants 2 to 4 who controverted the claim of the plaintiff that he was the next reversioner.

Defendants 2 to 4 also contended that the sale deed was genuine, valid and for consideration. The learned Munsif held u