Judgment O.N.Asthana, J. 1. This is the first appeal against the judgment and decree dated 27th February, 1976 passed by Sub-Judge, Siwan in Title Suit No. 405 of 1972, where the trial Judge dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. 2. The plaintiff-appellant filed the suit for declaration that the plaintiff is owner of the properties given in Schedules 1 and 2 of the plaint and that the defendsints have got no right, title and interest. 3. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is owner and is in possession of these properties; that the agricultural land given in Schedule A is fertile and gives the yield of Rupees eighty thousand in two years; and the plaintiff and his wife are living and their children died at an early age, and the plaintiff is an illiterate man of 60 years of age with no issues; that the defendants and their associate Mohan Lal live in the house close to the house of the plaintiff and they had been visiting the plaintiff often, and the plaintiff had full faith in the defendants and their associate Mohan Lal; that the defendants told this plaintiff that Ramadhar was selling his land at interest and the plaintiff might be a witness to the sale deeds being executed by Ramadhar Singh; and the plaintiff agreed to this suggestion of the defendants, and the plaintiff came thrice to the Registration Office, and the plaintiff put his thumb impression on the blank stamp papers at different intervals thrice outside the Registration Office; that later on the plaintiff came to know that the defendants got prepared the sale deeds said to be executed by the plaintiffs in favour of the defendants on 15th January, 1971, 17th August, 1971 and 24th September, 1971; that no sale consideration was received by the plaintiff and that the necessity shown in the sale deeds are all false; that all these three sale deeds are forged, fraudulent and void being without consideration. 4. 4. Defence is that the land was not fertile and the income from the land was not sufficient to meet the necessity of the plaintiff and the house of the plaintiff was in much dilapidated condition and the plaintiff executed the sale deeds telling the necessity of repairing the house, purchasing the bullock for the cultivation and for the marriage of his daughters daughter Buchia Devi; that the consideration of the sale deeds was paid to the plaintiff; that the defendants were not close to the plaintiff, and Mohan Lal was not close to the defendants that the plaintiff sold away these properties to the defendants and the plaintiff alongwith his wife wanted to settle at his father-in-laws house in order that his wife and he get the services of the relations in their old age, and that the nephews of the plaintiff got filed this suit for their own selfish gains. 5. Learned Advocate for the plaintiff-appellant contended that the evidence establishes that the sale-deeds were obtained by undue influence and fraud, and that the plaintiff was also illiterate. 6. According to the plaintiffs case this plaintiff put his thumb impression on three different dates on the blank stamp papers on the request of the defendants. The plaintiff might be illiterate but it does not seem probable that the plaintiff would have been putting his thumb impression time and again on different occasions on the blank stamp papers on the request of the defendants. The defendants might be the neighbours and thus known to the plaintiff but there is nothing special in the evidence of the parties as to show that the defendants were in a position to exercise undue influence on the plaintiff. 7. The deposition of the plaintiff Ramdeo P.W. 13 in para 24 of his statement shows that this plaintiff was knowing from his childhood that these defendants Kapildeo and Ramadhar were dishonest persons. In view of it, the plaintiff might be having faith in these defendants when the plaintiff came in the compound of the Registration Office is not borne out. 8. Plaintiff stated in his statement on oath in paras 25 and 26 that he was completely ignorant on all the three occasions about the alleged vendee Ramadhar and the plaintiff never liked to know for what amount and what properties Ramadhar was purchasing. 8. Plaintiff stated in his statement on oath in paras 25 and 26 that he was completely ignorant on all the three occasions about the alleged vendee Ramadhar and the plaintiff never liked to know for what amount and what properties Ramadhar was purchasing. This conduct of the plaintiff shows that the plaintiff had been suppressing the true facts in his deposition before the trial Court. 9. All the three sale-deeds are registered documents, and they bear the endorsement that this plaintiff appears on all the three occasions in the Registration Office and accepted the execution of these sale-deeds. The endorsement of the Registrar on these sale-deeds will be presumed to be correct. The statement of the plaintiff that on all these three occasions he remained sitting in a hut away from the Registration Office building and some clerk of Registration Office came to him and obtained his thumb impression is tissue of lies. 10. The plaintiff has admitted in his statement that his nephews came with him when the plaint was drafted, and his nephews and other agnates are the witnesses for the plaintiff in the Court. Thus it seems that the nephews and agnates of the plaintiff are behind this suit against the defendants, and these agnates and nephews might be interested if the properties could be taken back from the defendants, and thus these agnates and nephews happened to possess them. 11. The plaintiff has examined the hand-writing expert Sri Surendra Nath Pandey P.W. 11 who compared the thumb impression of the plaintiff Ramdeo Singh on the sale-deed alongwith the thumb impression on the registration receipts No. 17,67,57. Sri Pandey had not disclosed how many years experience he possessed in this job of the comparison. Sri Pandey P.W. 11 stated that he did not get prepared the enlargement of the thumb impression. Sri Pandey also admitted that the thumb impression on the receipt was faint. Obviously without enlargement the correct comparison was not possible. Accordingly the expert opinion given by Sri Surendra Nath Pandey P.W. 11 is not taken into consideration. 12. The plaintiff has examined the attesting witness of the sale-deed Exhibit-B/13 Ram Chandra Singh P.W. 4. This witness P.W. 4 Ram Chandra Singh is the nephew of the plaintiff and thus heir of the plaintiff. Accordingly the expert opinion given by Sri Surendra Nath Pandey P.W. 11 is not taken into consideration. 12. The plaintiff has examined the attesting witness of the sale-deed Exhibit-B/13 Ram Chandra Singh P.W. 4. This witness P.W. 4 Ram Chandra Singh is the nephew of the plaintiff and thus heir of the plaintiff. The statement of Ram Chandra Singh P.W. 4 that he did not come to the Registration Office and he did not put signature as witness is not believable. 13. The defendants have stated that the other attesting witness Mohan Lal had been gained over by the agnates of the plaintiff, and that the scribed of the sale-deeds was dead. The defendants and the witnesses D.Ws. 1, 5 to 8,10,12 and 13 have stated that the plaintiff was needing the money to purchase the bullocks, to repair the house and to marry his daughters daughter. The plaintiff Ramdeo Singh P.W. 13 has stated in para 32 of his statement that he purchased the bullocks, and the plaintiff admitted in para 33 of his statement that the house was repaired though not re-constructed. The plaintiff stated in para 7 of his statement firstly that he did not need any money for the marriage of his daughters daughter. In these sale-deeds the needs of the plaintiff seem to be recorded correctly. Even if the needs got recorded or found incorrect factually later on, the same is no ground to set aside the sale-deeds. 14. Relating the consideration from the recitals in the sale-deeds it is evident the plaintiff took the consideration of the sale-deeds before the execution of the sale-deeds except in the case of one sale-deed, where the plaintiff took the balance sale consideration of Rupees two thousand before the Registrar of registration. As discussed though the plaintiff might be illiterate, the deposition of the plaintiff in the Trial Court establishes that the plaintiff is to much worldly-wise. 15. The plaintiff-appellant has failed to prove the claim to get the sale deeds set aside, 16. The appeal is dismissed.