The court considered the evidence, including the defendant's knowledge of the deeds, and held that the suit was not barred by limitation.

Vijayendra Nath, J.

Heard Mr. S.K. Verma, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. S.S. Dwivedi, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.1.

2. This appeal has been filed against the JUDGMENT : and decree dated 04.06.1988 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Patna at Barh in T.A. No. 82/86 affirming the JUDGMENT : and decree dated 21.04.1986 passed by Additional Sub Judge II, Barh in T.S. No. 17/80 by which the suit has been decreed.

3. The plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration of title over the suit properties and for grant of injunction against the defendants from interfering in possession of the plaintiff. The background facts, culled out from the rival cases of the parties, are as follows:

The suit property including the house therein, admittedly belonged to the father of the plaintiff and consists of an area of 5 katha, 1 dhur, 8 dhurki of plot nos.120 & 122. The plaintiffs case is that his father was a doctor having good private practice besides being a Railway doctor and he acquired the suit land and constructed a house over the same. The plaintiff lived in the said house with his father and sister Sati Rani Gupta (defendant no.6) but later on the plaintiff started living outside in connection with his service. As the father of the plaintiff grew old, the defendant nos. 1 & 2 were appointed to look after him and attend to his requirements. However, gradually the defendants gained the confidence of the father of the plaintiff and taking advantage of their fiduciary relationship with him, they fraudulently brought into existence a sale deed on 19.08.1967 in favour of Bachi Devi, wife of defendant no.1, purporting to have been executed by the father of the plaintiff with regard to 10 decimals of land comprised in plot no. 120 and also manufactured a gift deed purporting the same to have been executed by the father of the plaintiff in favour of his daughter Sati Rani Gupta( defendant no.6) with respect to the land in plot no. 122. The plaintiff asserted that since after the death of his father, he had been in exclusive possession of the suit land and the house standing thereupon and the defendant never came in possession over the suit properties. It is also the case of the plaintiff that his father was above 90 years of age in the year 1967 and had become substantially weak both physically and mentally. The plaintiff has stated that he came to know about the sale deed and gift deed in favour of the defendants only during the criminal proceeding which was started against the defendants at the instance of the plaintiff for committing trespass and theft in the suit premises in the year 1980.

The defendant nos.1 to 5(defendant 1st set) however, have pleaded that both the deeds were executed by the father of the plaintiff consciously and he also accepted the consideration money from the defendants for sale. It is the case of the defendants that they constructed the house after the sale and later on Sati Rani Gupta (defendant no.6) also sold the property which she obtained by way of gift, to the defendants for consideration and since then the defendants are in possession of the entire suit property.

The defendant no.6 Sati Rani Gupta, in her written statement, put the blame entirely upon the defendant nos. 1 and 2 for fraudulently fabricating the sale deed and the gift deed. She stated that the defendant nos.1 and 2 on false pretext obtained the signature of her father on the two deeds but the real nature of the deeds did not come to the knowledge of the defendant no.6 or her father. She further stated that she became aware of the nature of the deeds and the fraud of the defendants only in the year 1972. However, she denied to be in collusion with the defendants in preparation of the deeds in question and supported the case of the plaintiff.

4. The trial court came to the finding that the deeds of sale and gift were not valid and genuine documents a