Mungeshwar Sahoo, J. – The defendants have filed this First Appeals against the Judgment and Decree dated 12.09.1986 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Siwan in Title Suit No.232 of 1984 whereby the plaintiff respondent’s suit had been decreed.

2. The plaintiff respondent filed the aforesaid suit praying for declaration that four sale deeds executed by plaintiff No.1, Bhusi Singh dated 23.09.1983 are forged and fabricated and without consideration. The sale deeds were never acted upon and the sale deeds are not binding on the plaintiff. The plaintiff also prayed for confirmation of possession of plaintiff No.2.

3. The plaintiff claimed the aforesaid relief alleging that the suit land belonged to Bhusi Singh, plaintiff No.1 who was a religious minded man. For the purpose of constructing temple, he required money and in November, 1982, he agreed to sell the suit land to plaintiff No.2, Jhotil Singh for a consideration of Rs.4500/-. Stamp paper was purchased on 20.11.1982. The plaintiff No.2 paid Rs.3000/- but due to long illness of Bhusi Singh, the deed could not be executed. However, on 03.08.1984, Bhusi Singh executed the sale deed and he got it registered on 30.09.1983. The balance amount of Rs.1500/- was paid at the time of execution of the sale deed.

4. The further case of the plaintiff is that the defendants when came to know about the agreement, they taking advantage of illness of Bhusi Singh took Bhusi Singh in the garb of his treatment by foreign doctor. On 22.09.1983 they took him to Barhaia Anchal office on the pretext that a petition would be filed to obtain certificate in connection with treatment and left thumb impression were obtained on plain paper. Subsequently, the plaintiffs found that the paper on which left thumb impressions were obtained had been converted to sale deed and registered on 23.09.1983. Criminal case was filed. Thereafter, the present suit was also filed. During pendency of suit, Bhusi Singh plaintiff No.1 died.

5. The defendants appellants filed written statement. Besides taking various legal and ornamental please, the defendants mainly contended that Bhusi Singh had sold the suit land for a consideration of Rs.20,000/- by registered sale deed dated 23.09.1983 and the defendants came in possession of the land, thereafter the plaintiffs purchased the stamp in the back date and got the sale executed only with a view to defeat the title of the defendants. Sale deed was registered on 30.09.1983 in favour of the plaintiff, therefore, the sale deed is fraudulent. The defendants have been acquitted in the criminal case. The sale deed in favour of the defendants have been executed by Bhusi Singh after taking the consideration amount as such those are valid, legal and binding on the plaintiff.

6. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, the learned Court below framed the following issues : –

(i) Is the suit as framed maintainable?

(ii) Has the plaintiff valid cause of action for the suit?

(iii) Is the suit barred by law of limitation waiver, estoppel and acquiescence?

(iv) Whether the suit is hit by Section A(b) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956?

(v) Whether the sale deeds dt.23.09.1983 executed in favour of defendants are fraudulent, illegal and are not binding upon the plaintiff?

(vi) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a declaration as prayed for?

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

7. The learned trial Court recorded finding that four sale deeds dated 23.09.1983 executed in favour of defendants are fraudulent and illegal and are not binding on the plaintiff No.2. Accordingly, the suit is decreed.

8. The learned counsel, Mr. Binod Kumar Singh, for the appellant submitted that learned trial Court decreed the suit only on surmises and conjectures and presuming the facts which are required to be proved by adducing evidence. Although the plaintiffs pleaded fraud but no particulars of fraud had been given in th