Burden of proof lies on those asserting validity of a transaction involving vulnerable parties; fraud undermines any purported execution of such deeds.

1. The Appellants, by filing this Appeal, under Section-100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'the Code') have assailed the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Cuttack in RFA No. 44 of 2007.

By the same, the Appeal filed by the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 under section 96 of the Code has been allowed whereby the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Salipur in Title Suit No. 37 of 1984 decreeing the suit filed by these Appellants as the Plaintiffs have been set aside and thereby these Appellants (Plaintiffs) have been non-suited.

2. For the sake of convenience, in order to avoid confusion and bring in clarity, the parties hereinafter have been referred to, as they have been arraigned in the Trial Court.

3. One Udhaba Pradhan was the original owner of the suit land described in the schedule given in the plaint. He died leaving behind his two sons, namely, Golakha and Duryodhan. Sometime after the death of Udhaba, his two sons Golakha and Duryodhan amicably partitioned their ancestral properties and began to reside under separate mess and estate having exclusive possession of land falling to their respective shares. It is stated that the suit property failed to the share of Duryodhan in the said amicable partition and he was in exclusive and peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same till his death. On 15.03.1981, Duryodhan died leaving behind these three Plaintiffs-daughters. It is stated that Duryodhan prior to his death was seriously ailing and on account of such illness, Duryodhan requested the Defendant No. 1 to look after the matter relating to his properties in the Consolidation Proceeding, which were then going on. Defendant No. 1 by taking advantage of the same and abusing the faith and confidence reposed by Duryodhan on him, who happens to be in agnatic relationship is said to have played fraud on him and managed to obtain the sale deed fraudulently in his favour in respect of the entire suit property by giving an impression to Duryodhan that he was executing a deed of power of attorney in his favour for the purpose of looking after his properties on his behalf. Just four days after the execution of said sale deed, Duryodhan died. It is also stated that the Defendant No. 1 for the purpose of obtaining the sale deed had not only got the deed scribed by his own person but also managed to obtain the thumb impressions of Duryodhan on the same without explaining him the contents. The sale deed was registered when the local Sub-Registrar visited the house of Duryodhan on 11.03.1981 upon acceptance of the request made for the purpose of said visit. It is further stated that there was no payment of consideration for the transaction and Duryodhan had never sold the suit land to Defendant No. 1. Immediately after obtaining the said fraudulent deed, the Defendant No. 1 started disposing of the properties in different parts to different persons. The Plaintiffs, who was the daughters of Duryodhan, having come to know about all these clandestine activities of Defendant No. 1 filed the suit.

4. The Defendant No. 1 contested the suit by fling written statement. It is stated that Duryodhan's brother Golokha has already alienated his shares in the ancestral properties to him by registered sale deed dated 25.05.1977. Duryodhan also said to have duly executed the sale deed on his own having fully understood the contents of the same and having put his LT