Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.

1. This First Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated, 6th February, 1985 passed by Sri Rameshwar Prasad, the learned 2nd Subordinate Judge, Arrah in Title Suit No. 2 of 1982 decreeing the Plaintiff-Respondent No. 1s suit. The Plaintiff-Respondent No. 1, Reshmi Kuer filed the aforesaid suit for cancelling and setting aside the six sale deeds, Exh. B/2 to B/7 on the ground that those sale deeds are fraudulent and without consideration.

2. According to the Plaintiffs, her husband, Ram Sakal Mahto died on 20th July, 1981 and she came in possession of the property of her husband. On account of her husbands death, she lost her mental balance and was not in a position to understand her loss or gain and moreover, she was illiterate and "Pardanashin" lady and was not understanding the worldly affairs. When she felt ill, her husbands friend, i.e. the Defendant took her to Jagdishpur in the garb of treatment and got her L.T.I, on several plain papers. Subsequently, she came to know that the Defendants had got several deeds created with respect to the suit property. Those deeds are not genuine and are without consideration. The sale deeds have been brought into existence in collusion with their own men and therefore, this suit has been filed.

3. The Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 filed separate written statements. It appears that subsequently, there had been compromise between the Plaintiff and the Defendant No. 2, Ramdhyan. The only controversy remained with the Plaintiff and the Defendant No. 1 who is the Appellant. According to this Defendant No. 1, Plaintiff was the third wife of Ram Sakal. Ram Sakal was not keeping good health after marriage and for the purpose of treatment, he borrowed money from different persons. He was indebted to the great extent and also the Plaintiff spent huge amount in performing his "Shradh". As a result of which, Plaintiff also borrowed money from the Defendants. Since the distant relations of Ram Sakal Mahto were pressing hard on the Plaintiff to sell the property in their favour for nominal consideration, the Plaintiff contacted the Defendants and agreed to sell the suit property for Rs. 30,000 and the sale deeds have been executed. Rs. 18,000 was adjusted and Rs. 12,000 was ready with the Defendant to be paid at the time of registration in presence of the Registrar but since the amount was heavy, she asked the Defendant to pay the same in her village home and subsequently, the Defendant No. 1 paid the same to her and there was Chirkuit Badlen. The Plaintiff was not "Pardanashin" lady. The sale deeds are valid and for consideration.

4. In view of the above pleadings of the parties, the learned Court below framed the following issues:

(i) Has the Plaintiff got valid cause of action to bring the suit?

(ii) Is the suit as framed maintainable?

(iii) Is the suit barred by limitation?

(iv) Are the sale deeds dated, 10th November, 1981 fraudulent and not binding on the Plaintiff?

(v) Is the Plaintiff entitled to declare that the sale deeds are not valid for consideration?

(vi) Is the Plaintiff entitled to get a decree as claimed?

(vii) To what relief or reliefs, if any, is the Plaintiff entitled?

5. After trial, the learned Court below found that there is no oral as well as documentary evidences regarding the loan advanced of Rs. 18,000 and further that the Defendant No. 1 has not been examined in the case and that the Defendants failed to prove the payment of Rs. 12,000 in the house of the Plaintiff and decreed the suit.

6. Mr. Anish Chandra Sinha, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submitted that in the registered sale deeds, it is clearly mentioned that Rs. 18,000 was taken as loan earlier and only Rs. 12,000 was to be paid in presence of the Registrar which was paid to her. The witnesses have supported this fact but the learned Court below has wrongly not appreciated the evidences properly. The learned Counsel further submitted that there are ove