Short Note : 1. The facts giving rise to the suit and this appeal, as briefly stated hereinafter, demonstrate that how the law of jungle still prevails in the interior villages of this country amongst the rustic inhabitants unaware of their rights and, even if aware, unable to enforce the same being in helpless depressed condition due to the terror created by certain individuals commanding undue influence by taking advantage of the poverty of the weaker section. 2. The case of the plaintiff was that due to some boundary dispute having arisen for a small patch of land of about 0.03 acres in between Asharam and Halalkhor, father of plaintiffs Nos.1 and 2, an incident of marpit took place while the respective claimants, i.e. Halalkhor and Asharam tried to assert their claims on the disputed patch of land at the time of harvesting of crops. Immediately thereafter Daulatram (now deceased) ex-proprietor of the village, who was siding Asharam, collected the villagers, including Asharam and his sons and also called Halalkhor and his brother Pitambar. Halalkhor was again beaten till he fell senseless. On knowing about this incident, which took place in front of the house of one Jagdish, Padum, the nephew of Halalkhor and the present plaintiffs Nos.1 and 2 (Sukchand and Phulchand) sons of Halalkhor and Suhata also came to the spot. They were also beaten. Halalkhor and Suhata, who received serious Injuries, had to be admitted in the hospital and remained there for about 15 to 20 days. On a report of the incident having been lodged, a criminal case was started against Asharam and others. This annoyed the other section, led by Daulatram, who was on the side of Asharam, and they decided to harass Halalkhor and his brother Pitambar by not allowing them to cultivate their holdings. On 9-12-1962, a Panchayat, i.e. meeting of the residents of the village, was called and Halalkhor and Pitambar were told that since they had unauthorisedly reaped the crops of Asharam from a patch of land belonging to him by falsely claiming the same to be their own and had lodged a report to the police, which resulted in prosecution of Asharam, both Halalkhor and Pitambar must pay a fine of Rs.2,500 and Rs.1,700 respectively to the village community. They were also told that unless the aforesaid amount of fine was paid by them, they would not be able to reap their crops which were standing on their fields. When Halalkhor and Pitambar expressed their inability to pay the aforesaid amount of fine, Daulatram and the other defendants asked them to execute a sale-deed in respect of the suit lands which comprised of fields 2.81 acres belonging to Halalkhor and 1.98 acres belonging to Pitambar. The threat given was that because they were unable to pay the fine, they would be permitted to reap the crops only when they executed the sale-deed in favour of one of the villagers, who may be nominated for this purpose. Sadanand, defendant No.1, who was then in the good books of the group led by Daulatram, was nominated as the person in whose favour Halalkhor and Pitambar had to execute the sale-deed. It was agreed that whenever Halalkhor and Pitambar 'would make payment of the fine imposed on them, they would be able to get their lands released. Even thereafter, harvested paddy crops of Halalkhor and Pitambar, stored in a heap, were mysteriously put to fire in the month of July 1964. When Halalkhor and Pitambar tried to plough the suit lands, they were not allowed to do so and were told that unless they paid the amount of fine, they would not be allowed to cultivate the fields. The bullocks brought by Halalkhor and Pitambar for ploughing were also taken away and, it is alleged that they were impounded in the cattle-pond. This dispute gave rise to three murders in the village. In the year 1964, Daulatram was murdered and thereafter Padum and Jagdo. Under these circumstances, later on, Sadanand also fell out from the group of Daulatram. Sadanand, Halalkhor and Pitambar found themselves unable to live peacefully in the village and, therefore they decided to shift to another village. Under these circumstances, Sadanand was asked to execute a deed of sale in respect of the fields of Halalkhor and Pitambar in favour of the members of the village community. Accordingly, Sadanand executed a sale-deed of the suit lands in favour of 12 persons of the village. The consideration shown in the sale-deed was Rs.3,000. 3. Under these circumstances, Sadanand was asked to execute a deed of sale in respect of the fields of Halalkhor and Pitambar in favour of the members of the village community. Accordingly, Sadanand executed a sale-deed of the suit lands in favour of 12 persons of the village. The consideration shown in the sale-deed was Rs.3,000. 3. The present plaintiffs, who are heirs of Halalkhor and Pitambar, instituted the present suit claiming possession of the suit land by alleging that the sale-deeds executed by Halalkhor and Pitambar in respect of the suit lands were without consideration and were nominal and sham deeds executed under threat in the helpless situation by way of collateral transaction to secure the payment of fine imposed unauthorisedly by the village community. They contended that the initial transaction in favour of Sadanand, being not a real sale, the subsequent sale deed executed by Sadanand in favour of the 12 defendant did not and could not convey any right, title or interest in their favour and that they were entitled to a decree for possession and mesne profits. In the alternative, it was also contended that the suit lands, being ancestral property, belonged to the respective joint families of Haialkhor and Pitambar and the sale was even otherwise not binding on the other co-parceners as the same was without any legal necessity. They claimed that the collateral agreement to pay the amount of fine imposed unauthorisedly was hit by the provisions of section 23 of the Contract Act and as such, they were entitled to get back possession of the suit lands without making any such payment and were also entitled to claim mesne profits for wrongful use and occupation for the last three years before the suit. 4. Out of the twelve persons of the village community in whose favour the sale-deed was got executed by Sadanand, 4 defendants, i.e. Defendant No.5-Khorbahara, 8-Sakharam, 12-Parsadi and 13-Dewar, did not claim any interest in the suit lands despite they being also recorded as purchases. However, the other eight defendants Nos.2-Balaram. 3-Jagdishram, 4-Ramratan, 6-Lalaram, 7-Kolhu, 9-Bhagela, 10-Lalaram S/o Dulu and 11-Ramcharan, contested the suit by contending that the sale-deeds executed by Halalkhor and Pitamber were genuine and the story of the Panchayat and the threat, all alleged by the plaintiffs, was false and frivolous. However, the other eight defendants Nos.2-Balaram. 3-Jagdishram, 4-Ramratan, 6-Lalaram, 7-Kolhu, 9-Bhagela, 10-Lalaram S/o Dulu and 11-Ramcharan, contested the suit by contending that the sale-deeds executed by Halalkhor and Pitamber were genuine and the story of the Panchayat and the threat, all alleged by the plaintiffs, was false and frivolous. Sadanand had purchased the land from Halalkhor and Pitamber for consideration in normal course and became the full owner of the same Accordingly, on execution of the sale deed by him in favour of 12 villagers, they become the owners. It was also contended that since no suit was brought within three years from the date of the execution of the sale-deeds in question seeking the relief of cancellation of the same, the present suit claiming declaration and possession was not maintainable as being barred by limitation The argument was that in the absence of a suit, brought within three years for cancellation of the sale-deed executed by Halalkhor and Pitambar in favour of Sadanand, and thereafter by Sadanand in favour of all the defendants, the plaintiffs were not entitled to claim the relief of declaration and possession. The sale-deeds executed by Halalkhor and Pitamber were binding on their heirs. The suit lands were sold by them for legal necessity of meeting the expenses of cultivation. 5. The trial Court decreed the suit holding that the sale-deed was for unlawful object, for unlawful consideration and actually without consideration, the sale is not binding on the heirs of Halalkhor, Padum and Pitambar, the suit is not time barred Mesne profits were also awarded. The defendants went in appeal. Held: Under these circumstances, the plaintiffs were entitled to sue for a declaration that the sales made by Halalkhor and Pitamber were not binding on them and do no affect their interest and could also sue for the relief of possession by ignoring the aforesaid null and void transactions. Their suit would not be barred for the reason that they had not sued for the cancellation of the documents within period prescribed by Article 59 of the Limitation Act. 1961 JLJ 138 and AIR 1968 SC 456 referred to. 6. Their suit would not be barred for the reason that they had not sued for the cancellation of the documents within period prescribed by Article 59 of the Limitation Act. 1961 JLJ 138 and AIR 1968 SC 456 referred to. 6. The suit brought by the plaintiffs for possession is undisputedly within 12 years Inaction or delay is being relied only as a relevant circumstance for holding that the transaction was not genuine, In the background of the undisputed circumstances that the dispute continued and repeated incidents of murder of the members of both the parties took place resulting in prosecution and confinement of both the sides time to time, the plaintiffs, including the widow, sons and daughter of Padum, who was murdered, were in disturbed condition and they had to shift from their village to another village. In the back ground of these circumstances, it is not possible to doubt and reject the case of the plaintiffs merely on the ground of delay when the suit for possession has been brought within limitation. Appeal dismissed.