( 1. ) THIS second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the impugned judgment and decree dated 21. 9. 1999 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Balaghat in Civil Appeal No. 62-A/98, whereby the judgment and decree dated 25. 11. 1994 passed by 1st Civil Judge, Class-II, Balaghat decreeing the suit of plaintiff has been reversed and set aside and the suit (Civil Suit No. 82-A/88) filed by respondent No. 1 Sarula Bai has been decreed.

( 2. ) IN brief the suit of plaintiff Dayawanti Bai is that defendant No. 1 Sarula Bai and defendant No. 2 Shisola Bai are her real sisters. Defendant No. 3 Sakharam is the husband of defendant No. 1 Sarula Bai and defendant No. 4 Guha is the husband of defendant No. 2 Shisola Bai. On 28. 11. 79 after making payment of consideration of Rs. 3,000/- she purchased disputed land Khasra No. 136 area 1. 68, Khasra No. 194 area 0. 42 and Khasra No. 195 area 0. 10, totalling 3. 20 acres of village Thema from her father Parasram. The land is in possession of plaintiff and is being cultivated by her. Similarly, on same date i. e. 28. 11. 79 she bought another suit land Khasra No. 195 area 0. 26 hectare of village Gudru for a consideration of Rs. 1,000/- from her father Parasram. A house which is built in area 0. 15 decimal of Khasra No. 137 of village Thema was also purchased by her from her father for a consideration of Rs. 1,000/ -. The defendants have no right, title and interest on these disputed properties. However, they forcibly dispossessed plaintiff from the suit lands as well as the suit house. Hence the civil suit for declaration and possession has been filed by plaintiff. The plaintiff further sought a decree of Rs. 2,250/-towards damages of the crop and for mesne profits Rs. 240/- w. e. f. 1st July, 1983 to 1st July, 1984 and thereafter Rs. 20/- per month till the possession of the suit house is delivered to her.

( 3. ) THE defendants have filed written statement refuting the averments made in the plaint. In the special pleas they have pleaded that the suit property was of their father Parasram, who was also the father of plaintiff. The plaintiff after abandoning the company of her husband Netlal for last several years was residing with her father. By taking undue advantage of old age of the father, by keeping him in dark and by playing fraud got the sale-deed executed. A specific plea has been raised by the defendants that the sale-deed is without payment of consideration. On the date of sale Parasram was under paralysis.

( 4. ) THE village Patwari told Parasram that in place of Will, the plaintiff got the sale-deed executed from Parasram, as result of which he (Parasram) through his counsel sent notice to plaintiff on 21. 7. 1980. The plaintiff earlier to 21. 7. 1980 left the house of Parasram on 10. 7. 1978 after stealing certain articles as well as Rs. 800/- cash and started living with Tulsiram of that village as his wife. The objections were raised so that mutation of plaintiff may not take place. Till Parasram passed away he (Parasram) remained in possession of the suit property and after his death defendants are possessing the suit property.

( 5. ) SPECIFIC objection in the written statement has been raised that the impugned sale-deeds are fictitious and void ab initio and are not binding upon the defendants.

( 6. ) DEFENDANT/respondent No. 1 Mst. Sarula Bai also filed another suit (Civil Suit No. 82-A/88) against present plaintiff Dayawanti Bai for declaration that the sale-deeds dated 23. 11. 1979 are null and void. The trial Court consolidated both the suits and after recording evidence, decreed the suit of plaintiff Dayawanti Bai.

( 7. ) MST. Sarula Bai filed first appeal before the lower appellate Court which has been allowed by the impugned judgment and decree and suit of plaintiff Dayawanti Bai has been dismissed. Hence this second appeal has been filed by plaintiff/appellant Dayawanti Bai before this Court.

( 8. ) ON 5. 3. 2001 this Court admitted this second app