Ved Prakash Vaish, J.

1. Heard Sri U.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Santosh Kumar Mishra with Sri Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This is an appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'C.P.C.') filed by the appellants against the judgment and decree dated 10.8.2001 passed by learned District Judge, Unnao in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the appellants against the judgment and decree dated 30.1.2001 passed by learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Purwa, Unnao, was dismissed.

3. Succinctly stated the facts of the case as born out from the appeal are that Sri Ayodhya @ Chhotkauna filed Original Suit No.109 of 1984 (Ayodhya alias Chhotkauna vs. Satti Lal and another) against the appellants on the allegations that he was a bhoomidhar-owner-in possession of Plot No.229 situated in Village Kutubpur, Pargana Bihar, Tehsil Purwa, District Unnao; the defendants/appellants are sons of his real brother-in-law, who are residing at a distance of twenty miles from the village of the plaintiff; the defendants seldom used to come to the house of the plaintiff. The plaintiff came to know that the defendants have filed a mutation case on the basis of forged sale deed alleged to have been executed by him on 23.9.1981; the mutation proceedings are forged; no notice was served upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff had not executed the sale deed and had not received any consideration; the sale deed is forged and fictitious.

4. The suit was contested by the appellants/defendants by filing written statement. The defendants denied the allegations made in the plaint, it was stated that the sale deed was genuine document and executed by the plaintiff after receiving the entire consideration. The defendants are the sons of real brother-in-law of the plaintiff; the plaintiff was issue-less and was living alone and the defendants used to look-after him. It was also stated in the written statement that the plaintiff had received entire consideration amount and executed the sale deed dated 23.9.1981 in the presence of witnesses which was duly registered; the possession of the land in question was handed over to the appellants and appellants are in possession of the said land. The appellants got the land mutated in the revenue record on the basis of the registered sale deed. It was also stated that the villagers were harassing the plaintiff and the plaintiff did not want to live in the said village and therefore, he had sold the land in question and put his thumb impression in the presence of witnesses Shiv Shanker and Raj Narian.

5. The plaintiff filed a rejoinder to the same, denied the allegations made in the written statement and reiterated the averments made in the plaint.

6. During pendency of the suit, the plaintiff, Ayodhya had died on 16.11.1985 and an application under Order XXII Rule 3 C.P.C. alongwith application under Order XXII Rule 9 of C.P.C. for setting aside abatement was filed by Smt. Raj Kumari (respondent herein). The said applications were allowed and the name of Smt. Rajkumari was substituted vide order dated 13.8.1993. The appellants challenged the said order by filing Civil Revision No.102 of 1993. The said revision petition was dismissed by learned IInd Additional District Judge, Unnao vide order dated 4.9.1999.

7. Thereafter, the appellants filed an additional written statement and stated that the deceased Ayodhya had not executed will in favour of Smt. Raj Kumari; the deceased Ayodhya belongs to ''Yadav' caste and Smt. Raj Kumari belongs to ''Brahman' caste.

8. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by learned trial court:-

1- D;k oknh c;ukek fnukafdr 23-9-81 eUlw[k djk ikus dh vf/kdkfj.kh gS\

2- D;k okn dk ewY;kadu de fd;k x;k gS rFkk vnk fd;k x;k U;k;'kqYd vi;kZIr gS\

3- okfnuh fdl vuqrks"k dks izkIr djus dh vf/kdkfj.kh gS\

9. In support of her case, the respondent/plaintiff examined four witnesses. Smt. Raj Kuma