The execution of a sale deed requires proof of valid signing and intention, where mere registration cannot establish execution if denied.

1. Admitted.

2. Appellants, wife and children of original defendant No. 1 on whose death a few days after the institution of the suit they assumed the character as his legal representatives initially sued for a declaration that a document of sale 'seen to have been executed by defendant No. 1' in favour of respondent No. 1 on 04/10/1986 concerning plaint A schedule property is void and for prohibitory injunction. They claimed that plaint A schedule property belonged to deceased defendant No. 1, husband of first appellant and father of appellant Nos. 2 and 3 and while so, sale deed dated 04/10 / 1986 was created as if it were executed by deceased defendant No. 1 which is not valid or binding on the appellants. They alleged that deceased defendant No. 1 was a drunkard, became unconscious during the relevant time due to acute illness and was unable to manage himself. He was admitted in C.K.G Memorial Hospital and then in Lourde Hospital. Therefrom he was taken to the tarwad house. It is while so that the impugned document was created as if it were executed by deceased defendant No. 1. Appellants alleged that deceased defendant No. 1 was not able to write or subscribe his signature and there was no consideration for the alleged sale. He was physically and mentally incapable of executing any such document. Alleging so they instituted the suit for a declaration and injunction as first above stated on 20/11/1986. Deceased defendant No. 1, it is not disputed expired on 23/11/1986 (the impugned sale was on 04/10/1986). Deceased defendant No. 1 had no occasion to file a written statement. Respondent No. 1 / defendant No. 2 contended that deceased defendant No. 1 had no relationship with the appellants for about 10 years preceding his death and that appellants are to prove that they are legal heirs of deceased defendant No. 1. He purchased the suit property, 90 1/2 cents for valid consideration from deceased defendant No. 1 as per Ext. B1, registered sale deed dated 04/10/1986. He denied the allegations concerning the alleged invalidity of the sale deed and claimed that deceased defendant No. 1 was physically and mentally capable of executing a sale deed and he did so. It is his further claim that though deceased defendant No. 1 knew to write and sign, he did not write his name in the document as he could not use his hand. While so, appellant No. 1 made a publication in a local daily stating that the document executed by deceased defendant No. 1 is invalid. That was replied by deceased defendant No. 1 by a similar publication stating that appellant No. 1 has been living away from him since long and that he executed the sale deed in favour of respondent No. 1 for valid consideration. Respondent No. 1 contended that appellants are not entitled to any relief. During the pendency of the suit respondent No. 1 transferred the property and the assignees were impleaded as additional respondents 2 to 4. They also raised similar contentions as respondent No. 1. In the meantime appellants got the plaint amended as one for recovery of possession as well. Consequent to the amendment respondents filed additional written statement denying title claimed by the appellants over the suit properties. Learned Munsiff held that execution of Ext. B1 (Ext. A1 is its certified copy) is not proved and decreed the suit in favour of appellants. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 challenged the judgment and decree in appeal. Learned Sub Judge held that the suit itself is not maintainable in the way it is framed, burden of proving that there was