JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel appearing for the appellants.

2. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 30.04.2016 (Decree signed on 17.05.2016) passed by the learned District Judge-IV, Palamau at Daltonganj in Title Appeal No.01 of 2012 affirming the judgment and decree dated 20.12.2011 (Decree signed on 11.01.2012) passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division-I, Palamau at Daltonganj in Title Suit No.17 of 2003.

3. The Title Suit No.17 of 2003 was instituted by the appellants/plaintiffs to declare that the Deed No.7862 dated 14.07.1997 is void inasmuch as the same was without consideration.

4. It transpires from the judgment of the court below that it was the case of the appellants/plaintiffs before both the courts that the suit property was recorded in the name of Jattu Sao and Bali Sao each having equal share and plaintiff is the heir and successor of one of the recorded successor of one of the recorded raiyat Jattu Sao. It was pleaded that defendants/respondents over-powered plaintiff/appellant and caused a sale deed executed by him vide sale deed no.7862 dated 14.07.1997 with the help of deed writer and one Sardar Singh. It is further alleged that recitals of the alleged deed was prepared on the instructions of defendants/respondents and Sardar Singh.

It was further case of the plaintiff that the deed was prepared on the instructions of defendants/plaintiffs and Sardar Singh and it has been falsely recited in the deed that full and final consideration that is Rs.20,000/-was paid to the plaintiff/appellant and he put his L.T.I., on the execution portion of the deed. It was further pleaded that the sale deed was neither read over nor explained to him and being and illiterate and rustic villager, the plaintiff/appellant could not know the implications of law and put his thumb impression out of belief and good faith. Further case of the plaintiff was that Chutka (registry receipt) was taken away by the defendants/respondents from the plaintiff/appellant and after some time a photo copy of the chutka was given to the plaintiff/appellant and owing to his illiteracy he could not know whether the chukta was original or photo copy.

It was further case of the plaintiff/appellant was that under the impression that plaintiff/appellant was under bona fide belief that he would return the chukta after getting the consideration amount but the defendants/respondents never demanded the said receipt nor made payment of consideration amount. It was further pleaded that the defendants/respondents attempted to get the possession over the suit land and when the plaintiff knew some rumours spread by the defendants/respondents that consideration money has already been paid to the plaintiff/appellant, then the plaintiff/appellant vide deed no.5406 dated 26.05.1998 cancelled the deed no.7862 dated 14.07.1997. It was also further pleaded that the plaintiff/appellant is in continuous possession over the suit land without any objection and all the right, title, interest and possession with respect to suit land under deed no.7862 remained with the plaintiff/appellant only. It was further pleaded that in the month of February, 2003 plaintiff/appellant was threatened by the defendants/respondents in order to dispossess him from the suit land and thereupon cause of action for the suit arose.

5. On summon the respondent/defendant appeared and filed the written statement. It was further pleaded that the defendants/respondents are heirs, successors and legal representatives of recorded tenant Bali Chamar and accordingly, half share in Khata No.41 came in their possession and the remaining half was acquired by them vide sale deed no.8662 dated 14.07.1997. Further pleaded by the defendants/respondents that Sidhani Sao transferred his interest in the suit land who fulfill his legal necessity which he had inherited from Jattu Sao to these defendants and accordingly, defendants/respondents become owner of enti