Ashok Kumar Pandey, J.—Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 28.08.1990 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Judgment’) and decree dated 11.09.1990 passed by the Subordinate Judge-III, Hajipur at Vaishali (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned trial court’) in Title Suit No. 26 of 1985 wherein and whereunder the learned trial court has decreed the suit.

3. The respondents/plaintiffs have filed a suit with a relief to declare void the four sale deeds dated 29.06.1984 executed by Gena Kuer in favour of Mishri Lal Rai, Upendra Rai and Tej Narayan Rai and Smt. Fulmati Devi, Garmu Rai and Paano Devi and for other reliefs.

Prosecution Case

4. The case of the plaintiffs in short is that a genealogy has been given at the foot of the plaint which is part of the plaint and from perusal of the genealogy it will transpire that Nathuni Rai had five sons, namely, Parshuram, Birju, Bhukhan, Thakur Dayal and Bhagwan Rai who died issueless in the state of jointness. Parshuram was having a son, namely, Sheo Deo Rai. Sheo Deo Rai had three sons, namely, Prabhu Rai, Garbhu Rai and Dhupa Rai. Garbhu Rai is the defendant no.1 and Paano Devi is defendant no.2 who is the wife of Prabhu Rai. Fulmati Devi (defendant no.3) is the wife of Dhupa Rai and Mishri Lal Rai (defendant no.5) is the son of Garbhu Rai. Tej Narayan (defendant no.6) is the son of defendant no.2 and one son of Bhukhan Rai, namely, Baldeo Rai is the plaintiff no.1.

5. It is further submitted that Thakur Dayal was having a son, namely, Chulhai Rai. Chulhai Rai was having no son. Gena Kuer is the widow of Chulhai Rai who has died. It has further been submitted that an area on 01 Bigha 01 Kattha 16 Dhur situated in Lawapur Mahnaar and Lawapur Narayan and Salempur and Jisrajpur P.S. Mahnaar District-Vaishali was the property of Gena Kuer, widow of Chulhai Rai. It has further been submitted that R.S. survey is in the name of said Gena Kuer. Apart from this, 12 dismil of land being the part of 36 dismil, a joint land was in the share of Gena Kuer.

6. Further case of the plaintiff is that Gena Kuer died on 29.09.1984 and at the time of her death, only the plaintiffs and one Prabhu Rai were the heir of Bhukhan Rai. Garbhu Rai and Dhupa Rai were alive and these four persons were the heir of same class of Gena Kuer. As such, the plaintiffs were having one half share and Garbhu Rai and Dhupa Rai were also having one and half share in the property of Gena Kuer. It is further submitted that the possession of the parties is there on the land as per their share and the properties are joint.

7. The respondents/plaintiffs have come to know that appellants/defendants have got executed four sale deeds on 26.09.1984, first in the name of Fulmati Devi (defendant no.3), second in the name of Mishri Lal Rai, Upendra Rai and Tej Narayan Rai, third in the name of Fulmati Devi and fourth in the name of Garbhu Rai and Paano Devi. When the respondents/plaintiffs obtained the certified copy of these deeds, they came to know regarding this act of the appellants/defendants. It has further been submitted that all the sale deeds are without consideration and actually they are not executed by Gena Kuer. It has further been submitted that Gena Kuer was an old lady aged about 80 years. She was very ill before her death, even she was not able to do her daily chores and was very feeble.

8. The witnesses of the sale deed are in collusion with the respondents/defendants, in fact they are not the witnesses of the deeds. The fact is that Gena Kuer has not executed any sale deed. She was having no need to transfer the land. She has not received any consideration and all the documents are sham. It has further been submitted that the said Gena Kuer has never appeared before the Sub-registrar nor she has agreed the execution. It appears that some imposture in place of Gena Kuer has executed the deed. The deeds were not written