The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appellate court's reversal of the findings on the limitation point and the genuineness of the sale deed was incorrect.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

1. Heard Dr. H. Waris, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. Vikash Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. This second appeal has been filed being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment dated 23.01.2001 and the decree signed on 03.02.2001, passed in Title Appeal No. 05 of 1991 by the learned Additional District Judge, Simdega, allowing the said title appeal and setting aside the judgment dated 07.12.1990 and the decree signed on 03.01.1991, passed in Title Suit No. 02 of 1984 by the learned Munsif, Simdega.

3. The Title Suit No. 02 of 1984 was instituted for adjudication of the right, title and interest over the suit land, as described in the plaint and for declaration of sale deed No. 8518 dated 26.11.1980, executed by Bhukhan Turi and Dhutu Turi registered at Ranchi as farji, fabricated, null and void, in-operative and not binding on the plaintiffs.

4. On contest, the aforesaid Title Suit No. 02 of 1984 was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents/plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 07.12.1990, passed in Title Suit No. 02 of 1984, the defendants/appellants/respondents challenged the said judgment in Title Appeal No. 05 of 1991, which was allowed in their favour and the judgment of the learned Trial Court was set aside. Aggrieved with the said order, this second appeal has been preferred and the said second appeal was admitted by order dated 12.11.2002 on the following substantial question of law:

(1) Whether the suit was barred by time?

(2) Whether Bhukhan Turi and Dhutu Turi descendants of Harakh Turi had executed sale deed, Exhibit-4?

5. Dr. H. Waris, learned counsel appearing for the appellants by way of drawing the attention of the Court to paras-14 and 15 of the Trial Court judgment submits that the limitation point has been considered by the learned Trial Court in the said paragraphs and by considering the documents as well as the sale deed No. 8518 dated 26.11.1980 has held that the suit is within time and not barred by limitation. He submits that the learned Appellate Court has reversed this finding of the learned Trial Court only on the ground that it was well within the knowledge of the plaintiffs that the sale deed was executed on 20.08.1981 and the suit was instituted on 25.08.1984 and the learned Appellate Court has held that after three years, the said suit was filed and that’s why, it has been declared that the suit was barred by time. He further submits that PW-1 at para-10 of his evidence has stated that he tried to find out about the sale deed at Ranchi and thereafter he came to Ranchi and he has been able to obtain the certified copy of the sale deed and thereafter the said certified copy of the sale deed was filed before the learned Trial Court on 02.06.1990. He further submits that PW-1 has further stated in his evidence that in absence of money, he has not been able to take any step before the police or any other authority. He further submits that in para-33 of the cross-examination, he has stated that he was not knowing about the date of execution of the sale deed prior to that as has been stated by him in Para-13.

6. On the point of limitation, Mr. Waris submits that the learned Appellate Court has not considered this aspect of the matter and has wrongly held that nothing has been brought on record to suggest that the appellants were not knowing about the execution of the sale deed prior to that. On this ground, he submits that the law point No. 1 may kindly be answered in favour of the appellants.

7. On the law point No. 2, Mr. Waris, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the learned Trial Court has considered this aspect of the matter in paras-16, 17 and 18 of the judgment and considering that not a single attesting witness has been examined in the suit, subscriber has also not been examined and there is no endorsement of the registering authority about the payment of consideration money is there and