Sale deeds must be proved by the signature of the executant as per Section 67 of the Evidence Act, and cannot be admitted without such proof, under Section 91, rendering erroneous decisions based on inadequately supported evidence.

Headnote:(A) Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 67 and 91 - Nature of proof for sale deeds - The sale deed must have signatures proved as per Section 67; non-compliance invalidates it under Section 91, prohibiting oral evidence. Appellate Court misapplied law, leading to erroneous findings. (Paras 12, 20, 24)

(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 41 Rule 31 - Appellate Court must discuss evidence in judgments. Failure to adhere renders the judgment unsustainable. (Paras 26, 30)

Facts of the case:
Plaintiffs sought to establish their landholding rights over a disputed property, alleging fraudulent execution of a sale deed by the defendants using blank signed papers, leading to a legal battle following the trial court's dismissal of their claim. The first appellate court decreed in favor of the plaintiffs.

Findings of Court:
First appellate court's findings were deemed erroneous, failing to meet legal requirements established for evidentiary documents, leading to restoration of the trial court's dismissal.

Issues: Whether plaintiffs proved the sale deed as legally required; whether the appellate judgment complied with procedural requirements.

Ratio Decidendi: Evidence Act mandates specific proof of sale deeds, rendering irrelevant an unevidenced judgment; appellate court failed to adhere to proper evidentiary standards.

Result: Second appeal allowed; judgment of the First Appellate Court set aside.

Table of Content
1. factual background of land transactions (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
2. defendants' counterclaims and court proceedings (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
3. discussion on proof of exhibit-1 in court (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
4. issues surrounding execution and admissibility of documents (Para 19 , 21 , 22)
5. conclusions and affirmation of trial court ruling (Para 30 , 31)

JUDGMENT :

Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, J.

Heard Mr. B. Malakar, learned counsel for the appellants. None appears for the respondents.

2. This Regular Second Appeal has been preferred against the impugned Judgment & Decree dated 16.06.2009, passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, FTC, Karimganj in Title Appeal No. 6 of 2005, allowing the appeal and thereby reversing the Judgment & Decree dated 09.07.2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division-I, Karimganj, in Title Suit No. 180/1999, by which the suit of the plaintiff/present respondents was dismissed.

3. The facts leading to the present second appeal may be briefly outlined. The present respondents had instituted a suit against the present appellants before the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Karimganj, seeking declaration of their landholder right and confirmation of possession over the scheduled land (hereinafter referred to as the Suit Land), along with consequential relief of permanent injunction as well as cancellation of the document described in Schedule-2 to the plaint, i.e., a Sale Deed alleged to be executed by the plaintiffs in favour of the defendants.

4. It was the case of the plaintiffs that the land described in Schedule-1 of the plaint was purchased by the plaintiff No. 1 on 25.1.1976 from Atul Chandra Malakar and others vide registered document No. 6298 of Sub- Registrar, Karimganj. On 22.9.1980 the plaintiff No. 1 sold that plot of land to Abdul Hoque, vide registered Deed No. 9496 of Karimganj Sub-Registrar. The possession of the land was also delivered to Abdul Hoque on the same date. On 6.11.1985 said Abdul Hoque sold the said land to plaintiff Nos. 1 to 4 and their two brother, viz., Abdul Fattah Choudhury and Salim Uddin Choudhury vide registered document No. 8571 dated 29.11.1985 of Karimganj Sub- Registrar. Possession of the said land was also delivered to the aforesaid purchaser and since 6.11.1985, they have been possession the aforesaid land in ejmali. Abdul Fattah Choudhury and Selim Uddin Choudhury died leaving behind their legal representative, the plaintiffs No. 5 to 7. The defendants No. 1 and 2 are neighbors of the plaintiffs and they had a good relationship. The said defendants requested the plaintiff No. 1 to help them in obtaining loan from the bank. Accordingly, the plaintiff No. 1 put some signatures in both blank stamp paper and blank plain papers on good faith to help the defendant Nos. 1 and 2. The plaintiff No. 1 also handed over the xerox copy of his purchase deed. But on 6.11.1994 the plaintiffs got knowledge that the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 created a fraudulent sale deed dated 8.4.1994, in respect of the said land by using the signed blank stamped papers wherein it is written that the plaintiff No. 1 received Rs. 10,000/-.

5. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 submitted their written statement. They have stated that the suit land (the land described in the schedule-1 of the plaint) belonging to the plaintiff No. 1 and on 8.4.1994, the plaintiff No. 1 executed sale deed on receipt of Rs 10,000/-, as consideration money and also handed over the possession of the land to the defendant, but did not turn up before the Sub-Registrar for registration, that is why registration of the deed was refused and subsequently on appeal, District Registrar directed the Sub-Registrar to register it and then the Sub-Registrar registered the deed.

Following Issues were framed by the court below:-

1. Whether there is any cause of action for the suit?

2. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present from?

3. Whether the plaintiff has got right, title and interest over the suit land?

4. Whether the