JUDGMENT S. B. Sinha, J. - This First Appeal at the instance of the plaintiffs arises out of a judgment and decree dated 31.3.1986 passed by Shri Alok Kumar Sinha, 4th Additional Subordinate Judge, Hazaribagh in Partition Suit No.55/82 whereby and whereunder the said learned court dismissed the suit filed by the appellant for a declaration that sale deed dated 29.5.1940 executed by the Tannu Mahto for self and as guardian of Baso Mahto and Sanichar Mahto is illegal, and also for a decree for partition in respect of his Eight Annas share out of the suit lands described in Schedule- A of the plaint. 2. Admittedly the lands described in Schedule A of the plaint belonged to one Matan Mahto who died leaving behind two sons namely Bhattu Mahto and Thannu Mahto. Bhattu Mahto died in the year 1939 leaving behind his wife Kamali Devi and two sons namely Baso Mahto and Sanichar Mahto (Defendant No.5). 3. According to the plaintiffs the said Thannu Mahto, Baso Mahto and Saniehar Mahto had all along been in joint possession of the suit lands as coparceners. Baso Mahto died issueless and thus his share allegedly devolved on Sanichar Mahto. Kamali Devi also died in the year 1960. The plaintiffs therefore contended that Sanichar Mahto became entitled to Eight Annas share in the suit property. He allegedly had all along been in joint possession thereof alongwith Thannu Mahto and after his death with his successors in interest who were arrayed as defendants 2 to 7 before the court below. The plaintiffs asserted that there had been no partition of the joint family properties but the parties had been in separate possession thereof as per their conveniences. 4. By a deed of sale executed in the year 1981 Sanichar Mahto transferred (1.32 ½ ) acres of land appertaining to Khata No. 34 to the plaintiffs for consideration of Rs. 10000/- and also delivered possession of the same. The said land has been described in Schedule B of the plaint. Thereafter the plaintiffs also transferred 10 decimals of land appertaining to plot No. 432 of Khata No. 34 to Dhaneshwari Devi, defendant No.8 and put her in possession. The defendant No.8 dug a well and constructed a house thereon. 10000/- and also delivered possession of the same. The said land has been described in Schedule B of the plaint. Thereafter the plaintiffs also transferred 10 decimals of land appertaining to plot No. 432 of Khata No. 34 to Dhaneshwari Devi, defendant No.8 and put her in possession. The defendant No.8 dug a well and constructed a house thereon. It is alleged that Ram Das Singh, Defendant No.1, who did not have any right over the said land tried to disturb the possession of the plaintiff and started a proceeding under section 144 of the Cr. P. C. in respect of 1.22 acres of land of Khata No. 34. It is averred that Defendant No. 1 in the said proceeding alleged in his show cause that he had purchased 2.65 acres of land in Khata No. 34 .by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 29.5.1940 from Thannu Mahto. It is stated that the plaintiffs or their vendor had no knowledge about the said sale deed and learnt about the same on 23.7.1981 for the first time when the plaintiffs inspected the records of 144 Cr. P. C. proceeding. It is also claimed that Baso and Sanichar were not minors and thus Thannu had no right to execute the said sale deed on their behalf. According to the plaintiffs the sale deed dated 29.5.1940 was void and illegal and defendant No.1 thereby did not acquire any right, title, interest or possession with respect of lands of Khata No. 34. The plaintiffs asserted that they had acquired right, title, interest or possession over the lands covered under the sale deed dated 12.2.1981 and thereafter the Sub-Divisional Magistrate illegally made• the rule u/s 144 of the Cr.P.C. against the plaintiffs. 5. The defendant Nos. 1 and 8 had appeared and filed two separate written statements in the said suit. Defendant No.2 to 7 did not appear inspite of service of summons, hence the suit had been heard ex-parte against them. 6. The defendant No.1 in his written statement inter-alia contended that the suit was not maintainable and the plaintiffs had no valid cause of action for the suit. It was further contended •that the suit was also barred by law of Limitation. 7. It was also alleged that after the death of Matan Mahto, his two sons Bhattu and Thannu came in joint possession of lands of Khata No. 34. It was further contended •that the suit was also barred by law of Limitation. 7. It was also alleged that after the death of Matan Mahto, his two sons Bhattu and Thannu came in joint possession of lands of Khata No. 34. It was further alleged that they were also joint in mess and worship and Were also members of joint Mitakshara family. Bhattu died in the year 1937 and Kamali Devi died in the year 1939. 8. It was further asserted that Thannu fell in need of money and as such he for legal necessity on his own behalf for self and as guardian of Baso and Sanichar executed a deed of sale in favour of the defendant. 9. It has further been asserted that after the aforementioned purchase the said defendant cam~ in possession of the lands in suit and his name was mutated in the office of Manager, Encumbered Estate, Ex-landlord and he had been paying rent to the exlandlord and after vesting of the Zamindari to the State of Bihar. 10. The defendant No. 1 sold 20 decimals of land of plot No. 432 to defendant No.8 by virtue of registered deed of sale and put her in possession thereof. The defendant No. 8 dug a well and also had been cultivating the vacant land. The name of the defendant No.8 was also mutated in respect of her purchase of lands. 11. The defendant No. 8 also filed a separate written statement supporting the case of the defendant No. 1. 12. Upon the aforementioned pleadings of the parties, the learned court below framed seven issues which arc as follows: "(i) Is the suit as framed maintainable? (ii) Have the plaintiff any valid cause of action for the suit? (iii) Is the suit barred by law of limitation? (iv) Is the suit barred by law of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence? (v) Whether the sale deed dated 29.5.1940 executed by Tannu Mahto for self and as guardian of Baso Mahto and Sanichar Mahto illegal, valid, inoperative and whether the plaintiffs or their vendor are bound by the same? (vi) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for partition of 8 annas share of defendant No.5 out of schedule A property? (vii) To what other relief or reliefs if any, are the plaintiffs entitled?” 13. (vi) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for partition of 8 annas share of defendant No.5 out of schedule A property? (vii) To what other relief or reliefs if any, are the plaintiffs entitled?” 13. The learned court below inter-alia held that Thannu Mahto had the authority to execute the deed of sale on behalf of the minors, and the said deed of sale was for legal necessity. It was further held that the suit is barred by limitation in view of Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 14. The learned trial court further held that the plaintiff has failed to prove that he has been in possession of the properties in suit. On the other hand it was held that the aforementioned deed of sale dated 29.5.40 was acted upon and the defendant No.1 had all along been in possession of the properties in suit. 15. Mr. Sumir Prasad, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has principally raised two contentions in support of this appeal. The learned counsel firstly submitted that in view of the provisions contained in Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, uncle being not a guardian of the minor, he had no authority to execute the aforementioned deed of sale dated 29.5.1940 in favour of the plaintiffs. The learned counsel contended that as it has been established by adduction of evidences that Sanichar was not minor in the year 1940, the said purported deed of sale dated 29.5.1940 must be held to be void. 16. The learned counsel further submitted that in view of the fact that the plaintiffs came to learn about the execution of the aforementioned deed of sale dated 29.5.1940 only in the proceeding under Section 144 of the Cr. P. C. in the year 1982; the suit was not barred under the law of limitation. 17. The questions which therefore, arise for consideration in this appeal are: (i) Whether Thannu Mahto had the authority to execute the sale dated 29.5.1940; (ii) Whether the appellants have been able to prove that Baso and Sanichar were major in the year 1940 and thus the deed of sale is void? . (iii) Whether the suit is barred by limitation? 18. Re-questions (i) and (ii) : - Both the questions being inter related, they are being taken up for consideration together. 19. . (iii) Whether the suit is barred by limitation? 18. Re-questions (i) and (ii) : - Both the questions being inter related, they are being taken up for consideration together. 19. There appears to be controversy with regard to the dates of death of Bhattu and Kamali. Whereas according to the plaintiffs Bhattu died in the year 1939 and Kamli died in the year 1941, according to the defendant No.1 Bhattu died in the year 1937 and Kamali died in the year 1939. 20. However, the said question is not of much importance. 21. It is admitted that the joint family comprising of Thannu Mahto, Baso and Sanichar had other properties besides the suit lands. 22. The entire joint family property is not the subject matter of the partition. The plaintiffs has also not stated as to why he has not included all the joint family properties in the suit. 23. In the deed of sale dated 29.5.1940 it has been averred that the said lands were being sold for payment of arrears of rent. Sanichar Mahto who examined himself as P.W. 4 did not deal with this aspect of the matter. He further maintained his silence as to when he came to learn about the execution of the impugned deed of sale. 24. The defendants in support of their case of possession in or over the properties in dispute have Filed large number of documents. Ext. B-2 is the mutation receipt issued by Wards and Encumbered Estate, Hazaribagh in favour of defendant No.1 on 23.12.1944 for lands of Chandwara. Ext. C-2 and C-2/1 are rent receipts issued by Wards and Encumbered Estate, Hazaribagh to defendant No. 1 with respect of 2.65 acres of lands of Khata no. 34 of Village Chandwara. It relates to the period 2000 to 2002Sambat. Ext. C-2 and C2/3 are rent receipts issued by the ex-landlord in favour of defendant No. 1 with respect of the above land for the year 2003 to 2006 sambat. Ext. A-2 to A-2/8 are also rent receipts issued by the State of Bihar to defendant No. 1 for lands of Khata no. 34. These receipts show that they are in sequence and prior to 1965 receipts were issued for 2.65 acres of land and thereafter for 2.45 acres of lands. As • the defendant No.1 transferred 20 decimals of land to the defendant No.8 in the year. 34. These receipts show that they are in sequence and prior to 1965 receipts were issued for 2.65 acres of land and thereafter for 2.45 acres of lands. As • the defendant No.1 transferred 20 decimals of land to the defendant No.8 in the year. It corroborates the story of sale of 20 dec. of lands to defendant No. 8 in the year 1964. 25. Ext. E-2 is the registered deed of sale executed by Thannu is favour of defendant No. 1 for self and as guardian of Balo and Sanichar in respect of 2.65 acres of land of Khata no. 34 of village Chandwara. In this deed Sanichar and Balo have been described as minors. In the said deed the legal necessity for sale was payment of arrears of rents and other debts and to meet household needs. The necessities as recited in the deed of sale have not been challenged in the plaint. 26. Morever, it is admitted in the plaint • that the joint family had other properties also. Thus, if land is sold to clear of the arrears of rent, it definitely comes within the purview of legal necessity. 27. Ext-F-2 is the certified copy of order dated 20.11.81 passed by the then S. D. M. Hazaribagh, in the proceeding U/s 144 Cr. P. C. This show that the order U/s 144 Cr.P.C. was made absolute against second party members and the same was vacated as against first party. This order further shows that defendant No.1 had produced all his documents before the Executive Magistrates but the party did not produce any document. 28. So far the documents of defendant No. 8 are concerned. Ext-A-l A-1/1 are receipts for 20 decimals of land of Khata No. 34/2. This shows that she had been obtaining rent receipts on the basis of the purchase made from defendant no. 1. Ext. C-l is the registered Kewala dt. 28.1.1964 executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No.8 with respect of 20 decimals of land of plot No. 432 under Khata No. 34. Ext. C-1/1 is the subsequent sale deed dated 16.2.1982, executed by plaintiffs in favour of defendant no. 8 with respect to 10 dec. of land of plot No. 432 of Khata No. 34. According to the case of defendant no. 8, the plaintiffs executed a nominal sale deed only to assert their right and create evidence. Ext. C-1/1 is the subsequent sale deed dated 16.2.1982, executed by plaintiffs in favour of defendant no. 8 with respect to 10 dec. of land of plot No. 432 of Khata No. 34. According to the case of defendant no. 8, the plaintiffs executed a nominal sale deed only to assert their right and create evidence. From the perusal of Khatian it appears that the total area of plot No. 432 is 20 decimals and this defendant after purchase of the entire 20 dec. from defendant No. 1 was also getting rent receipt from the State of Bihar. 29. The plaintiffs have also filed a large number of documents. Ext. 3 is a rent receipt issued by the State of Bihar in favour of Sanichar Mahto with rspect to 1.32 ½ acres of land of Khata No. 34 for the year 1951-52. Ext. 3/A is another rent receipt for the same description for the year 1952-53 to 1955-56-Exts. 4 and 4/a are two rent receipts of the similar description issued by the Ex-landlord for the period from 2003 to 2005 Sambats. 30. Ext. 4/b and 4/C are rent receipts issued by the Wards and Encumbered Estates, Hazaribagh in favour of Sanichar Mahto for the same land and the same were granted for the years 2000 to 2002 Sambat. 31. The documents filed on behalf of the appellants do not inspire evidence for various reasons. firstly there is nothing on record to show as to how the rent receipts were granted only in the name of Sanichar Mahto. If the contentions of the appellants were correct that the properties belonged to the Joint family and that there had been no partition amongsts the co-sharers; no rent receipts could have been granted in favour of the Sanichar Mahto alone either by the ex-proprietor or by the State of Bihar. The appellants had also not produced any document to show that either in the office of the ex-landlord or the State of Bihar any order of mutation was passed in favour of Sanichar Mahto nor they had been shown as to how the quantum of rent was determined in the name of Sanichar Mahto alone. 32. Further Ext-3-A also does not appear to be a genuine document as the same does not bear the look of an old document. 33. 32. Further Ext-3-A also does not appear to be a genuine document as the same does not bear the look of an old document. 33. It is also partinent to note that in all the rent receipts the area of the land has been mantioned as 1.32 ½ acre of land. There is no supporting documents to show as to how rent was being realised only in respect of the aforementioned area of the lands, although it is the specific case of the plaintiffs that there had been no partition of the joint family properties. Further it has not been explained as to how rent receipts were granted only in respect of the 1 acre and 32 ½ decimals of land, although besides the suit properties, the joint family had other properties. 34. From a perusal of the rent receipts filed on behalf of the respondents, it appears that the same were in respect of 2.65 decimals of land and the rent therefor was Rs. 3/whereas in the rent receipts filed on behalf of the appellants for 1.32 ½ of the land, rent had been shown to be Rs. 3/-. 35. This discrepancy has not been explained by the appellants. 36. The respondents have not only filed rent receipts but also filed orders of mutation passed in their favour. The defendants have further brought on records a registered deed of sale executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant No.8 in relation whereto an order of mutation was passed in favour of the defendant No.8. 37. Taking thus all facts and circumstances into consideration, there cannot be any doubt that on the basis of the documentary evidences alone, it has to be held that the sale deed dated 29.5.1940 was a genuine and valid document and the same had been acted upon and pursuant thereto the defendant no.1 came in possession of the lands in suit. 38. Mr. Sumir Prasad the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant had not taken through the oral evidences nor did he contend that the plaintiff had been able to prove his case, by reason of his oral evidences. It is further well known that in a civil suit for the purpose of arriving at the finding with regard to possession, the totality of the circumstances has to be taken into consideration. 39. It is further well known that in a civil suit for the purpose of arriving at the finding with regard to possession, the totality of the circumstances has to be taken into consideration. 39. For the reasons aforementioned, I do not find any infirmity in the findings of the learned court below on the aforementioned questions. 40. In this situation, Bhattu's interest must be held to have been devolved upon Balo and Sanichar alone. Thannu thus became the manager of the joint family. As manager of the joint family he could execute the registered deed of sale for legal necessity of the joint family. The existence of legal necessity namely payment of arrears of rent has been mentioned in the sale deed dated 29.5.1940. Sanichar Mahto did not question the same. Even the plaintiffs did not question the existence of legal necessity. 42. It is now well known that registered documents carried with them some amount of sanctity. It is further well known that the contents of an' old document should not normally be brushed aside. 43. P.W.7 Jagarnath Mahto who supported the case of the plaintiff stated Balo died 15 years prior to his death of his deposition whereas P.W. 4 stated that Balo died 40 to 42 years ago. P.W. 1 was 40 years old and therefore he was not a competent witness on that point. Although P.W.4 Sanichar Mahto stated that in the year 1940 that he was about 30 to 35 years old, in cross-examination he could state the day, the date or the month of the birth. He also admitted that he is not in a position to file a documentary proof with regard to his date of birth. According to him he was about 30 to 35 years old at the time of his mother's death. The plaintiff's case is that the mother of the Sanichar died in the year 1960. Thus he was on his own showing a minor in the year 1940. 44. Further Sanichar could not either give the plot numbers or the boundary of the lands which had been purchased by the defendant No.8 from the Defendant No.1. Similarly P.W.6 stated that he had seen Balo for the last time 30 years ago and at that time Balo was 15-16 years old. This also goes to show that in the year 1940 Balo and Sanichar were minors. Similarly P.W.6 stated that he had seen Balo for the last time 30 years ago and at that time Balo was 15-16 years old. This also goes to show that in the year 1940 Balo and Sanichar were minors. This wit ness also could not only state the plot numbers or the boundaries of the lands in quest ion. He also admitted that he had not seen any rent receipts in respect of disputed land. 45. P.W. 7 has been examined only on the point of possession. He made out a third case that he had seen the plaintiff in possession of 1.32 ½ acres of lands for the last 20 years. In his cross-examination he also could not state the boundaries of the lands in question. P.W.8 was aged about 32 years at the time of his deposition, and although he stated that he had acquired hosh at t he age of 19, he proceeded to state that the plaintiffs had been in possession of 1.321/2 acres of lands for the last 20 years. He could not however say as to who has been cultivating the remaining land. He could not however say as to who has been cultivating the remaining land. He had also not been able to say about the plot number, area or boundary of the suit lands. 46. P.W. 11 is also a witness on possession. He admitted that he has no idea about disputed land nor could he say anything about the land of any other person of the village. P.W. 15 Balki Mahto alleged that Bhattu died 40 Years ago and at that time Sanichar was 20 to 25 years old. This witness also could not say about the area and boundary of the lands in suit nor could he say as to whether the defendant no.8 is in possession of her 20 decimals of land. He also could not state the year or the date of death of Bhattu or his wife. He admitted that the defendant No.1 was in possession of the lands which were in possession of Thannu. He, thus, supported the case of the defendants- respondents at least to till; effect that the defendant no.1 had been in possession of some of lands in dispute and t hat he had sold 20 decimals of the land to defendant No.8. He admitted that the defendant No.1 was in possession of the lands which were in possession of Thannu. He, thus, supported the case of the defendants- respondents at least to till; effect that the defendant no.1 had been in possession of some of lands in dispute and t hat he had sold 20 decimals of the land to defendant No.8. There, thus cannot be any doubt whatsoever on the basis of the deposition of the witness of the plaintiff that the aforementioned deed of sale dated 29.5.1940 was a genuine document and the same had been acted upon. 47. The contentions of the appellant, therefore, to the effect that the said deed was never acted upon cannot be accepted. 48. In this view of the matter, the questions No.1 and 2 aforementioned must be answered against the appellants. 49. Re-Question No. (iii) : As noticed hereinbefore, even the plaintiff's witness admitted that the defendant No.1 came in possession of the lands belonging to the joint family. It is therefore, unbelievable that Sanichar Mahto had no knowledge about the execution of the aforementioned deed of sale. Further as noticed hereinbefore, the defendant No.1 had sold 20 decimals of land in favour of defendant No.8, in the year 1964. 50. The plaintiff admittedly acquired the land from Sanichar Mahto in the year 1981. It is thus beyond anybody's comprehension as to how the Sanichar Mahto could be ignorant about the execution of the deed of sale by Thannu Mahto in favour of defendant No.1 as far back as on 29.5.1940, particularly in view of the fact that thereafter orders of mutation had been passed by the competent authorities and the defendant No.1 had been paying rent and since 1964 the name of the defendant No.8 was also mutated and she had also been paying rent in respect of her purchased 20 , decimals of land. . 51. Article 59 provides for a period of limitation of three years in respect of suit for cancellation or setting aside an instrument. The starting point of limitation is the date of knowledge when the alleged contract rescinded first became known to him. As Sanichar Mahto was minor in the year 1940 he could have questioned the legality of the aforementioned deed of sale dated 29.5.1940 within a period of three years upon attaining majority. The starting point of limitation is the date of knowledge when the alleged contract rescinded first became known to him. As Sanichar Mahto was minor in the year 1940 he could have questioned the legality of the aforementioned deed of sale dated 29.5.1940 within a period of three years upon attaining majority. The aforementioned deed of sale dated 29.5.1940 was not void but a voidable document. The said document was voidable at the instance of. Sanichar Mahto as the only case made out, was absence of legal necessity and minority of Sanichar & Balo. Curiously enough Sanichar Mahto in his deposition before the court below did not state as to when he came to learn about the execution of the aforementioned deed of sale dated 29.5.1940 by Thannu Mahto, in favour of the defendant No. 1. 52. Mr. Sumir Prasad learned counsel submitted that the plaintiff came to learn about the execution of the aforementioned document in a proceeding under Section 144 of the Cr. P. C. which was initiated in the year 191012. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the alleged knowledge of the plaintiff with regard to execution to the aforementioned document dated 29.5.1940 in the year 1982 is wholly irrelevant inasmuch as if the suit have become barred by limitation, at the hands of Sanichar Mahto, the same must be held to be barred by law of limitation at the instance of the plaintiff. 53. For the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. 54. However, as the respondents have not appeared, there will be no order as to costs.