The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of oral testimony, the credibility of witnesses, and the relevance of expert opinions in cases involving disputed possession and execution of legal documents.

Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.

1. Heard Sri Bhanu Bhushan Jauhari, for the petitioners and Sri Ram Niwas Singh, for respondent-6.

2. This petition has been filed against the orders of Additional Commissioner dated 13.09.1995 and Board of Revenue U.P. dated 28.02.2006, passed in suit under Section 229-B/209 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').

3. Hafizuddin (the father of the petitioners) filed a suit (registered as Suit No. 27/100 of 1986-87) under Section 229-B/209 of the Act, on 29.07.1985, for declaring him as 'bhumidhar with transferable right' of plot 51 (area 16 biswa 15 dhur) of village Daniyalpur, tahsil Chail, district Allahabad (at present Kaushambi). Later on, he filed an application dated 23.05.1989 for amendment of the plaint, seeking relief for ejectment of defendant-1 from the disputed land and delivery of possession over it. He took plea that he was bhumidhar in possession of the disputed land, in which he had planted 30 trees of guava, 7 neem, one kathal, two awala, one jamun, 3 gular, one lisoda, 8 mango and one kaban kachnar and had been taking fruits of the trees continuously. In the year 1983, Alimuddin threatened to take possession over disputed land, then he filed O.S. No. 709 of 1983, for permanent injunction, restraining Alimuddin from interfering in his possession over it, which is pending before Civil Court. During pendency of O.S. No. 709 of 1983, he came to know that Alimuddin got a sale deed dated 23.05.1978 executed, in his favour through some imposter of the plaintiff, which is void. On the basis of sale deed dated 23.05.1978, name of Alimuddin was recorded in revenue record, without any notice to the plaintiff. On these allegations suit has been filed.

4. Alimuddin filed his written statement and contested the suit. He denied plaint allegations and stated that Hafizuddin was in need of money and voluntarily executed sale deed dated 23.05.1978, after taking sale consideration of Rs. 6000/- and handed over possession over disputed land. After obtaining sale deed various other trees were also planted by him. As the plaintiff was not in possession as such he could not give correct numbers of the trees. According to him there were 48 trees of guava, 9 neem, 2 kathal, two awala, 4 jamun, 2 gular, one lisoda, 3 mango, one ber, one sharifa, one jungle jalebi and one juhi and he had been taking fruits of the trees continuously, from the date of sale deed. He specifically denied that sale deed was procured through some imposter and stated that sale deed contains signatures of Hafizuddin, who himself presented the sale deed for registration before Sub-Registrar. Mutation of the name of Alimuddin was done after due proclamation of notice, which was personally served upon Hafizuddin. Since the sale deed, he had been in possession and taking fruits of it.

5. Sub-Divisional Officer framed issues and recorded evidence of the parties. The petitioners examined witnesses Hafizuddin, Vishwanath, Bhullan and P.K. Tripathi (Handwriting & Finger Print Expert) and filed documentary evidence. The defendant examined Ram Kumar Kushwaha, Alimuddin, Chandrapal, Motilal, Mohd. Nasim, Advocate and Madan Mohan Kakkar (Handwriting & Finger Print Expert), as witnesses and filed his documentary evidence. Sub-Divisional Officer, after hearing the parties, by his order dated 28.06.1989 held that although Alimuddin, in his statement has stated that when Hafizuddin came to talk about the sale deed then he had asked that he had no belief in him and you come with your sons but he had not obtained signatures of the sons of Hafizuddin on the sale deed nor he took with him his own witness. Alimuddin along with Hafizuddin went for execution of the sale deed from his house but he could not take any witnesses from his village. Although Ram Kumar Kushwaha and Sharda had signed the sale deed as witness but they did not appear before Sub-Registrar although sale deed was presented fo