The admissibility and probative value of documents, interpretation of sale deeds, and the period of limitation for cancellation of sale deeds and recovery of possession under Article 64 of the Limitation Act.

P.G. Agarwal, J.

1. The appellants/plaintiffs instituted Title Suit No. 58/89 and the said suit was dismissed by the trial court, whereupon the appellants preferred Title Appeal No. 29/96 before the Civil Judge, (Senior Division) but no relief was granted and hence the present appeal. Title Suit No. 58/89 was in respect of 3 bighas of land out of 7 bighas 1, kathas 13, lechas of land situated at village Jahorpum under Ghilazari mouza and covered by Dag No. 595 and KP patta No. 142 (hereinafter referred to as the suit land).

2. The case of the plaintiff is that one Md. Munir Uddin Munsi was the original owner of the land, and sold 5 bighas of land to one Bhagawan Das and the said Bhagawan Das sold the suit land measuring 3 bighas to the father of the plaintiff namely Daulat Khan by registered sale deed No. 7286 of 1978. The plaintiffs obtained mutation over the suit land but subsequently it was cancelled. The plaintiffs thereafter filed the suit for declaration of right, title and confirmation of possession and also for issuance of precept for mutation.

3. The respondents/defendants contested the suit raising the usual pleas. The defendants denied the alleged sale in favour of the plaintiffs by Munir Uddin. The defendants also filed counted claim stating that the plaintiffs have forcibly occupied the suit land on 11.12.86 and accordingly the defendants prayed for declaration of right, title and recovery of khas possession and also for cancellation of the sale deed No. 7286 of 1978.

4. The trial court framed as many as 10 issues. The suit was once decreed in favour of the plaintiff by judgment and order 27.9.93 but in Title Appeal No. 1/94 the said decree was set aside and the matter was remanded, back whereupon vide judgment dated 27.8.96 the trial court disposed of the suit at below: -

"Considering the decision of the issue No. 10, the suit of the plaintiffs are hereby dismissed on contest and the counter-claim suit of the defence suit is hereby decreed on contest and with cost.

The defence side is entitled to get the following reliefs :

1. The right, title, interest are hereby declared in favour of the defendants in respect of the land measuring an area of 5 B.S. under Dag No. 595 covered, by the patta No. 142 (P) of village Jahorpum as scheduled in the counter clams.

2. It is hereby declared that the sale deed being Nos. 5742/72, 6883/74 and 7286/78 have no values in the eye of law and the same is liable to be cancelled as its executants had no right to execute the same said Precepts be sent to that effect to the concerned authority.

3. It is hereby declared that the defendants are entitled to get the khas possession of the lands scheduled in the counter claim from the plaintiffs and the pro forma defendants by dismantling the houses of the concerned parties thereon and by evicting them therefrom.

4. The cost of the suit.

With the above relief's, the case is disposed of on content."

5. The appellate court vide impugned order dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court.

6. At the time of admission of the appeal, the following substantial questions of law were formulated:-

(i) That whether the courts below in interpreting the plaintiffs document, i.e., exts. 1, 2 and 3 arrived at a finding, which is perverse?

(ii) That whether the counter claims, could have been filed at the facts and circumstances of the case.

7. The defendants before us are the heirs of late Munir Uddin Munsi and they have denied the alleged sale in favour of Bhagawan Das/Daulat Khan. The plaintiffs have produced Ext. 1 a certified copy of Jamabandi, ext. 2 a certified copy of sale deed 5742/73 to show that Munir Uddin had sold 2 bighas of land to Daulat Khan. In the plaint it was stated that late Munir uddin had executed two sale deeds No. 5742/72 and 6883/74 in favour of Bhagawan Das. But surprisingly enough the plaintiffs did no produce copy of sale deed No. 6883/74. The sale deed No. 5742/72 is in respect of only 2 bighas