JUDGMENT :

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. The substantial question of law involved, formulated and to be answered in this plaintiff's second appeal is as under:-

"Whether the lower appellate Court was justified in reversing the finding recorded by the trial Court that the sale deed dated 11.02.1997 executed by Sukariya Bai was without consideration and void ab initio?"

(For the sake of convenience, parties would be referred as per their status and ranking shown in plaint before the trial Court.)

2. Plaintiff Jantram filed a suit for declaring three sale deeds Exs. P-4, P-5 & P-6 executed by his mother Sukariya Bai on 11-2-1997 in favour of Dayadas (defendant No. 1), Neelkanth (defendant No. 2) & Premchand (defendant No. 3) to be null and void mainly on the ground that on 11-2-1997, the date on which sale deeds were executed by his mother, his mother was aged and illiterate woman and the defendants, taking benefit of her old age and illiteracy, fraudulently without payment of consideration to her, got the aforesaid sale deeds executed in their favour in the Office of the Registrar, Raipur. Since no consideration amount has been passed to seller Sukariya Bai, to his mother, and the defendants have also got their names mutated in the land records, as such, all the sale deeds Exs. P-4, P-5 & P-6 are null and void and they be set aside and are not binding on the plaintiff.

3. The defendants filed their joint written statement denying the plaint allegations stating inter alia that the sale consideration has been paid to Sukariya Bai which has been recorded in sale deeds Exs. P-4, P-5 & P-6 and title has been passed in their favour and thereafter their names have rightly been mutated in the land records, as such, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

4. The trial Court decreed the suit holding that no consideration has been passed in favour of Sukariya Bai vide Exs. P-4, P-5 & P-6 on 11-2-1997 by defendants No. 1 to 3, respectively, and as such, the sale deeds are null and void and not binding on the plaintiff, who is son of Sukariya Bai, and directed for delivery of possession of suit land to the plaintiff.

5. In appeal preferred by the defendants, the first appellate Court set aside the judgment & decree passed by the trial Court and dismissed the suit against which this appeal has been preferred in which substantial question of law has been framed which has been set-out in the opening paragraph of this judgment.

6. Mr. H.B. Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the plaintiff/appellant, would submit that the first appellate Court is absolutely unjustified in reversing the well merited and well reasoned judgment & decree of the trial Court and thereby dismissing the suit, it ought to have been held that no consideration was passed in favour of Sukariya Bai - mother of the plaintiff, therefore, the sale deeds have rightly been held to be void and the same are not binding on the plaintiff and as such, the substantial question of law deserves to be answered in favour of the plaintiff and the second appeal deserves to be allowed.

7. Miss Swati Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 5 & 6, would support the judgment & decree passed by the first appellate Court and submit that none of the witnesses of the sale deeds Exs. P-4 to P-6 were examined, even the scribe of the sale deeds was also not examined, therefore, the first appellate Court is absolutely justified in granting the appeal and in dismissing the suit.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the record with utmost circumspection.

9. It is not in dispute that Sukariya Bai executed three sale deeds dated 11-2-1997 in favour of defendants No. 1 to 3, respectively, and the amount of consideration is said to have been passed in the sale deeds to the extent of Rs.1,51,800/-, Rs. 49,600/-, Rs.38,600/-, respectively, by defendants No. 1 to 3 in favour of Sukariya Bai. Thereafter, Sukariya Bai died af