Mungeshwar Sahoo, J. – The plaintiffs have filed this first appeal against the impugned judgment and decree dated 19.6.1978 passed by Sri Brij Kishore Thakur, learned 2nd Additional Subordinate Judge, Siwan in Title Suit No. 205 of 1975 dismissing the plaintiffs appellants’ suit for declaration that the sale deed executed by Subhawati Devi claiming herself to be the widow of Uma Shankar is void and executed by a person without title.

2. The plaintiffs’ case in short is that Nayak Bhagat had three sons namely Mathura, Gokul and Udham. Mathura died issueless. Gokul had three sons namely Bhuwal, Bharat and Jawahar. Bharat and Jawahar died issueless. Bhuwal had three sons namely Ram Shankar, plaintiff No.2, Shiv Shankar, plaintiff No.1 and Uma Shankar. Uma Shankar died issuless in the estate of jointness with his brother. The entire property of Nayak’s family was inherited by the plaintiffs and are in possession of the same. They have also claimed title by adverse possession. The further case is that the co-villager Mukhiya Bishwanath Missir with a view to grab the property got a collusive sale deed executed on 19.7.1975 for 5 bigha 19 kattha 4 dhur land in the name of his relation namely Rikheshwar Nath Tiwari, the defendant from one Subhawati Devi who executed the sale deed claiming herself to be the widow of Umashankar. The said Subhawati executed the sale deed and claimed that she had also a daughter namely Kalindi Kumari. According to the plaintiffs Subhawati and Kalindi had no concern whatsoever with Uma Shankar and they are imposters whose identification shall be given latter on after verification. In view of the fact that Subhawati Devi or Kalindi had no relation with Uma Shankar they had no title to execute the sale deed and therefore, the sale deed is void and without consideration.

3. The defendant appeared and filed contesting written statement. The case of the defendant in short is that Uma Shankar died on 20.12.1970 leaving behind his widow Subhawati and a daughter Kalindi who was born on 22.12.1968. The widow and the daughter succeeded to the properties of Uma Shankar and even the name of Subhawati Devi was mutated with respect to the property. She herself and on behalf of minor daughter sold the suit property for Rs.40,000/- and delivered the possession of the property in favour of the defendants. The other allegations were denied.

4. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings the court below framed following issues : –

“(i) Have the plaintiffs cause of action for the suit?

(ii) Is the suit, as framed, maintainable?

(iii) Is the court fee paid sufficient?

(iv) Is the suit barred by the law of limitation?

(v) Whether the plaintiffs have right, title and interest in the suit properties?

(vi) Did Uma Shankar die leaving behind his wife Subhawati Devi and a daughter named Kalindi?

(vii) Is the sale deed executed by Subhavati genuine, valid and for consideration?

(viii) Are the plaintiffs entitled to the relief sought for or any other relief?”

5. After trial the learned court below came to the conclusion that Uma Shankar died leaving behind his widow Subhawati and a daughter Kalindi and the sale deed is genuine and valid and is for consideration.

6. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the judgment and decree passed by the court below is passed on inadmissible evidence and therefore, it is perverse and is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel further submitted that the court below has wrongly relied upon Ext. A and H. The learned court below also wrongly relied upon the evidence of DW 8 DW 12 and DW 13 particularly, when the plaintiffs adduced evidence of PW 8 who has categorically stated that Harihar has already died but the defendants examined another person as DW 8 who claimed himself to be Harihar. The learned counsel further submitted that the main role is played by the Mukhiya who obtained the sale deed from a fictitious lady who claimed to be the widow of Uma Shankar. Overwhelmin