An undivided owner's possession of property cannot be transferred without proper authority, and actions for cancellation of disputed sales are valid within three years from knowledge of the sale's existence.

JUDGMENT

1. This is an appeal under Section 100 of the CPC preferred against the judgment and decree dated 20.09.2019 and 24.09.2019 respectively delivered by the District Judge, Khowai in T.A.08 of 2018 dismissing the judgment and decree passed in T.S.02 of 2012 dated 18.07.2018.

2. The brief fact of the case is that the plaintiffs have some portion of land measuring 9 gandas in total nearby their homestead at Karoilong which they have inherited from deceased Narendra Chandra Rudra Paul as described in Schedule-A of the plaint. In the year 2002-2003, due to dire need of money, the plaintiff approached the defendant No.2 for loan amounting to Rs.20,000/- which the defendant No.2 had given the plaintiff on taking her thumb impression on a paper narrating and explaining her as 'receipt of loan.' In the year 2011, when the plaintiff approached the defendant No.2 for returning a part of the said loan, she was informed by the defendant No.2 that the land had already been purchased from the plaintiff in the year 2003. The plaintiff was perplexed as she never made any sale deed or visited the Sub-Registry Office at Khowai and the said land is under their peaceful possession.

3. After registration of the suit, summons were served on all the parties and they entered their appearance through their respective counsel and contested by filing written statement. The trial Court after recording their statements framed the following issues in order to decide the suit :

'ISSUES

i) Whether the suit is maintain able in its present form and nature?

ii) Whether the suit land is the joint property of the plaintiffs and they are in possession of the said land?

iii) Whether the registered sale deed bearing No.1-942 dated 04.07.2003 is void in the eye of land and liable to be cancelled?

iv) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the decree as prayed for?

v) To what other relief/reliefs the parties are entitled to?'

4. The trial court on appreciation of the evidence decreed the suit with costs in favour of the plaintiffs and declared that they are in possession of the suit land as described in Schedule-A of the plaint. The trial court has further held the sale deed as described in Schedule-B of the plaint as void.

5. The defendant No.1 in the suit preferred appeal being T.A.08 of 2018 challenging the judgment and decree dated 18.07.2018 and 25.07.2018 respectively delivered in T.S.02 of 2012. It was the case of the appellant in the said appeal that for urgent need of money the plaintiff respondent No.1 approached him for sale of the land in question for a consideration price of Rs.40,000/- and accordingly, the sale deed was registered in the name of the present appellant. It was further argued by the appellant that the Title Suit suffered from non-joinder of necessary parties and therefore, deserved to be dismissed.

6. The District Judge, Khowai after hearing both the sides and on appreciation of the issues and the evidence, held that the appeal preferred by the appellant was devoid of merit and thereby affirmed the judgment passed in the title suit.

7. Aggrieved by the order in appeal against the concurrent findings the present appeal has been preferred by the defendant No.1 who is the appellant herein.

8. At the time of admitting this appeal, the following substantial questions of law have been framed:

'(i) Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation for the reason that the suit for cancellation of the sale deed No.1-942 dated 04.07.2003 has been filed after the lapse of nine years ?

(ii) Whether the findings of both the courts below are perverse ?

(i