The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove due execution of a sale deed, especially when executed by an illiterate person, to establish the validity of the transaction and the acquisition of right, title, and interest over the property.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. RATH, J.

1. Defendant nos. 2 and 3 are the appellants against the reversing judgment.

2. Respondent nos. 1 to 3 as plaintiffs instituted the suit for declaration of right, title and interest and permanent injunction impleading the appellants and respondent No. 3 as defendants. The case of the plaintiffs is that Plot No. 450, Ac.0.31 dec. under Holding No. 83/18 corresponds to Sabik Plot No. 495, Ac.0.27 dec. and Plot No. 499, Ac.0.04 dec. under Holding No. 43 of Mouza-Phuguda stood recorded in the name of Bhagirathi Chinagun. The suit land is the joint family property of the plaintiffs and was never partitioned by metes and bounds. Bhagirathi died leaving behind his three sons, namely, Damadar, Ratu and Pabitra. Ratu died issueless. Damadar died leaving behind his wife Ketho and two sons, namely, Jayadhar and Thulu. Pabitra died leaving behind his three sons, namely, Gobardhan, Sikun and Kapurchan, who are plaintiffs 1 to 3 respectively. Both the sons of Damadar died. Ketho Chinagun was maintained by Pabitra. After the death of Pabitra, all the plaintiffs maintained her. She was residing with them in the house situated over the suit land. After the ancestral house was collapsed, plaintiffs 2 and 3 constructed a new house over the suit land. When the defendants threatened to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit land, they found that Ketho Chinagun had sold the suit land to defendant No. 1 by means of registered sale deed dated 12.6.1974 for consideration of Rs.400/-. It is further stated that Ketho Chinagun was deaf and dumb. She was an illiterate woman. Defendant No. 1 managed to execute the above deed by practicing fraud. She had no legal necessity to sell the land. Neither any consideration was paid, nor delivery of possession was made to the defendants. The defendants obtained the certified copy of the ROR in respect of Holding No. 26 on 21.2.1995. On verification, it came to the knowledge of the plaintiff No. 3 that defendant No. 1 had filed Mutation Case No. 277/91 to mutate the land in her favour. The said mutation case was filed against a dead person. The R.I. or the Amin had never visited the spot. They are not bound by the record-of-right prepared in the name of defendant No. 1. The defendants are not in possession of the suit land. The defendants threatened plaintiff No. 3 to dispossess him from the suit land.

3. Pursuant to issuance of summons, defendants entered appearance and filed the written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. The case of the defendants is that Bhagirathi died in the year 1960. After his death, both sons, namely, Damadar and Pabitra remained jointly till 1965. Thereafter, the ancestral property was divided between them. Damadar died leaving behind his two sons and his wife Ketho. His two sons died. Their funeral ceremonies were performed by Ketho. To meet the expenditure, she executed the registered sale deed bearing No. 1904 dated 12.6.1974. Since then defendant No. 1 is in peaceful possession over the suit land without any interference. Defendants have been possessing the suit land since 1974 with the knowledge of Pabitra Chinagun and thereby they have perfected their title over same.

4. On the basis of inter se pleadings of the parties, learned trial court struck eleven issues, which are as follows:-

"1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form?

2. Whether there is any cause of action to bring this suit?

3. Whether the plaintiffs have right, title, interest over the suit land?

4. Whether the R.S.D. bearing No. 1904 dated 12.6.1974 executed by Ketho Chinagun in favour of the defendant No. 1 is void one?

5. Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation?

6. Whether the defendants were liable to be injected permanently in order to disturb the peaceful possession of the plaintiff?

7. To what any other relief this plaintiffs are entitled to get?"

5. To substantiate the case, the plaintiffs had examined two witnesses and on their behalf, five documents were exhib