1. The present second appeal has been placed under the heading ‘For Hearing under Order 41 Rule 11 CPC’.

2. I have heard learned Counsel for the appellant on the point of admission of the present second appeal.

3. According to learned Counsel for the appellant, the present second appeal involves several substantial questions of law, requiring determination by this Court.

4. The appellant was the defendant in Title Suit No. 303 of 2004, before the Trial Court. The Suit, filed by the plaintiffs respondent 1st set herein, for declaration of title and recovery of possession, was dismissed by judgment and decree, dated 21.05.2008, passed by learned Sub Judge III, Saran, at Chapra, which has been reversed by judgment and decree, dated 20.03.2017, passed by the learned Additional District Judge VI, Saran, at Chapra, in Title Appeal No. 36 of 2008, and has decreed the suit in favour of the respondent 1st set. The appellant herein is aggrieved by the said judgment of reversal passed by the appellate court below.

5. The case of the plaintiff, as explained in the plaint, was that the disputed suit property had fallen in the share of defendant no. 1-appellant, who, through sale deed, dated 07.09.1987, had transferred the same in favour of Lalo Devi. Lalo Devi, through two sale deeds, both executed on 18.09.1990, had transferred the suit property in the name of Kusum Devi, plaintiff no. 1- respondent no. 1 herein. The plaintiff no. 2 (respondent no. 2 herein) is the husband of said Kusum Devi. It appears that earlier eviction suit was filed, giving rise to Eviction Suit No. 05 of 1998, with a plea that defendant no. 1 was allowed to remain in the suit premises as a tenant and since the plaintiffs required the said suit premises for personal necessity, the defendant no. 1 was required to be evicted. The said eviction suit was dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff could not establish the relationship of landlord and tenant between her and defendant no. 1. The appeal preferred against the eviction suit, being Eviction Appeal No. 18 of 2003, also came to be dismissed.

6. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed the present suit for declaration of title and possession over the suit land. It transpires from the records that the appellant-defendant no. 1 entered appearance and filed his written statement.

7. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that it was the specific case of the appellant before the Trial Court, in his written statement, that the said sale deed, dated 07.09.1987, was executed by him when he was in the state of intoxication and he was not in a position to understand as to what was he doing. He pleaded that he did not have any knowledge about the execution of the said sale deed, dated 07.09.1987, when it was executed. It was his further case that the moment he realized about the execution of the said sale deed, dated 07.09.1987, he executed a cancellation deed, dated 28.09.1987.

8. Learned Trial Court, on the basis of rival pleadings, framed altogether six issues, including Issue Nos. III and V, which read thus:-

III. Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation?

V. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get over this suit property as detailed in schedule 2 of the plaint and the plaintiffs are entitled for a decree for recovery of possession?

9. An issue, that whether suit was barred by principle of resjudicata, was also framed. The Trail Court, upon examining all the evidence adduced at the trial, deciding issue no. IV, recorded that the suit was not barred by resjudicata. On the question of execution of sale deed, learned Trial Court held that the sale deed, dated 07.09.1987 was forged and fabricated. On the question of limitation, the learned Trial Court held the suit as not barred by limitation.

10. The finding, recorded by the Trial court to the effect that the sale deed, dated 07.09.1987, was forged and fabricated and was executed by the defendant no. 1 in a state of intoxication, has