1. - This is defendant's second appeal filed against judgment and decree dated 06.04.1984 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Dausa, whereby it confirmed judgment and decree dated 12.05.1978 of learned Munsiff, Dausa, who decreed the suit of plaintiffs and declared the sale-deed dated 11.01.1972, which was in favour of defendant no.1, as ineffective against plaintiff and further issued an injunction restraining defendants from interfering with possession and use of disputed property.

2. Seven plaintiffs, who were all sons and daughters of deceased Rampratap, filed aforesaid suit on 10.05.1972, inter-alia, with pleading that their father Rampratap had purchased a house situated in Mohallah Agarikawala of Laslot, from one Balabux, the father of defendants no.1 and 2 Jagdish Prasad and Rameshwar Prasad, by sale-deed dated 10.12.1942. When defendants no.1 and 2 pressurised the plaintiffs to resale the house to them, the plaintiffs denied. With a view to grabbing the house, those defendants behind the back of plaintiffs executed a sale-deed and got the same registered in favour of defendant no.3 Ramgopal on 11.01.1972. Defendant no.3 wanted to forcibly take possession of the house which was resisted by the plaintiff's family. Hence the suit was filed praying for aforesaid declaration and injunction.

3. Defendants filed a common written statement asserting therein that defendants no.1 and 2 were owner and title-holder of the disputed house. They have their own rights to sale the house to defendant no.3 and put him in possession thereof in accordance with the law. Defendant no.3 has every right to take possession, occupy and make use of the said property. Sale deed dated 11.01.1972 for consideration of Rs. 1000/- was registered by defendants no.1 and 2 in favour of defendant no.3. It was prayed that the suit be dismissed.

4. Learned trial court framed as many as seven issues. Burden of proof of issues no.4, 5 and 6 was on defendants but their counsel did not press the same before trial court. For rest of the issues, burden of proof was on plaintiffs and those issues were decided in their favour. It was held that possession of disputed house was with plaintiffs and that this house was purchased by their father vide sale-deed dated 10.12.1942 (Exhibit-2) from father of defendants no.1 and 2. The sale-deed (Exhibit-2) is a document of more than 30 years old therefore presumption about its correctness under Section 90 of the Evidence Act was raised that it was executed in favour of Rampratap, father of plaintiffs, by Mathuralal and Balabux, fathers of defendants no.1 and 2. Sale consideration of the house was also duly passed on. Since sale consideration was only Rs. 85/-, at the relevant time its registration was not necessary. However, execution was found proved. Learned trial court recorded its finding of possession against defendant no.3 though he claimed to be in possession, and in favour of plaintiffs. The appellate court affirmed those findings.

5. Learned counsel for appellants has argued that learned courts below have erred in law in raising a presumption about correctness in respect of both, the sale-deed dated 10.12.1942 (Exhibit-2) and receipt (Exhibit-3) merely because both happen to be thirty years old documents, under Section 90 of the Evidence Act. Basic requirements of law in this respect have been given a complete go by. Exhibit-3, the receipt, was forged one wherein date of execution is mentioned as Asoj Budhi Teej of Samvat 2023, which is corresponding to 02.10.1951, whereas the date 02.10.1951 had fallen on Asoj Sudhi Dooj of Samvat 2008 and Asoj Budhi Teej of Samvat 2023 fell on 02.10.1966. Stamp papers were purchased on 10.02.1950 and title is mentioned as receipt dated 10.02.1948, which has been overwritten to indicate 02.10.1951. The document is full of discrepancies and therefore could not be relied on. Both the courts below have erred in law in accepting such documents in evidence as genuine. If t