RIPUSUDAN DAYAL, CJ. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29-9-2001 by the learned District Judge, south and West Districts, Sikkim in Civil Suit no. 1 of 1998 dismissing the suit brought by plaintiff/appellant for declaration that he is the owner in respect of half share in cardamom fields bearing plot No. 489 measuring 3980 hectare and plot No. 505 measuring 6080 hectare situated at Borong Block, South Sikkim as per the boundaries given in the schedule to the plaint, for recovery of possession of the suit land, for a declaration that the sale deed executed by respondent No. 1 in favour of respondent No. 2 in respect of the suit land registered on 15 4-1994 is null and void and for correction in the records of rights. ( 2 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 Pahalman Gurung was defendant No. 1 and respondent No. 2 master Navin Gurung was defendant No. 2 in the Civil Suit before the learned trial Judge. ( 3 ) DEFENDANT No. 1, Pahalman Gurung is the uncle of the plaintiff/appellant Dhan bahadur Gurung. Bhim Bahadur Gurung, father of the plaintiff, was the younger brother of defendant No. 1. Bhim Bahadur Gurung died in the year 1988 leaving the plaintiff as his sole male survivor. Bhim Bahadur Gurung and defendant No. 1 were the sons of late harka Bahadur Gurung who died in or around the year 1983, Though Harka Bahadur Gurung had other sons also, yet at present the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 are his only living male descendants. Harka Bahadur Gurung was admittedly the exclusive owner of the disputed plots. The plaintiff has claimed that he acquired rights and interests in the properties left by harka Bahadur Gurung through birth and as such he has become the joint owner of all the properties with defendant No. 1, as all the properties left by Harka Bahadur Gurung were coparcenary properties. The plaintiff further alleged that the properties were recorded in the name of Harka Bahadur Gurung at the time of his death in the year 1983 and there has been no partition of the coparcenary properties even thereafter either between defendent no. 1 and father of the plaintiff or defendant no. 1 and the plaintiff. The plaintiff further alleged that the properties were recorded in the name of Harka Bahadur Gurung at the time of his death in the year 1983 and there has been no partition of the coparcenary properties even thereafter either between defendent no. 1 and father of the plaintiff or defendant no. 1 and the plaintiff. Further, he stated that he came to learn in the later part of 1996 that defendant No. 1 had executed a sale deed in respect of the suit land in favour of respondent no. 2 in the year 1992 which was registered on 15-4-1994 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, ravangla Sub-Division, South sikkim. According to the plaintiff, the sale in respect of the suit land by defendant No. 1 was without his knowledge and consent and the alienation was void in its entirety. Furthermore, the plaintiff alleged that in order to execute the sale deed defendant No. 1 illegally and surreptitiously managed to get recorded the suit land in his name in the year 1992 and after the registration of the sale deed the suit land was got recorded in the name of defendant no. 2. ( 4 ) DEFENDANT No. 1 admitted, in his written Statement, that Harka Bahadur gurung was the owner of the suit land. However, he denied that the plaintiff had acquired any right or interest in the properties left by late Harka Bahadur Gurung and alleged that bhim Bahadur Gurung had completely separated in mess and living and had obtained his share in the family properties and as such the plaintiff did not acquire any right, title or interest in the suit land. Defendant No. 1 denied that the plaintiff became aware of the sale transaction only in the year 1996 and alleged that the plaintiff had been duly informed about the sale and he had given consent about it at that time. According to him, the sale deed executed in favour of defendant No. 2 is correct and the entries in the record of rights are also correct. According to him, the sale deed executed in favour of defendant No. 2 is correct and the entries in the record of rights are also correct. ( 5 ) DEFENDANT No. 2 has, in his written statement, submitted that the Khattan Parcha in respect of the suit land was in the name of defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 purchased the land for consideration in good faith, bona fide believing that defendant No. 1 was the owner and that the sale deed executed in his favour is valid. He has further stated in his amended written statement that on 11-12-1957 Harka Bahadur Gurung had made one document stating that the suit property which had been given to him by his brother Saney gurung on 12-12-1956, could be enjoyed by harka Bahadur Gurung and only that son who would look after the parents and no other brothers including Bhim Bahadur Gurung and that the parents were looked after by Defendant no. 1 till their death. Thereafter, defendant no. 1 became the exclusive owner of the property and as such defendant No. 1 had the right to execute the sale deed in favour of defendant No. 2. He has also stated that the father of the plaintiff had already separated after receiving his share in the ancestral properties. The learned trial court framed the following issues: (I) Is the suit maintainable as framed? (ii) Whether the suit is barred by the law of limitation? (iii) Whether the suit land is the self acquired or ancestral property in the hand of defendant No. 1? (iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim the properties on the basis of the undertaking dated 11. 12. 1957 of his father late Bhim bahadur Gurung? (v) Whether the defendant No. 1 illegally and surreptitiously managed to record the suit land in his name in the year 1992 in order to execute the sale deed with the defendant no. 2? (vi) To what relief/reliefs, if any, is the plaintiff entitled?on issue No. 1, the trial court held that the suit is maintainable. On issue No. 2, the suit was held to be barred by limitation. On issue No. 3, the learned trial court held that the suit land had been given to Harka Bahadur gurung by his brother Saney Gurung and the land was not the ancestral property in the hands of Harka Bahadur Gurung. On issue No. 2, the suit was held to be barred by limitation. On issue No. 3, the learned trial court held that the suit land had been given to Harka Bahadur gurung by his brother Saney Gurung and the land was not the ancestral property in the hands of Harka Bahadur Gurung. It has further held relying upon the evidence of Tikaram Gurung pw-4 and A. D. Gurung DW-2 that the suit land was the self-acquired property of late harka Bahadur Gurung as he got the same from Saney Gurung and that the parents of defendant No. 1 were residing with him and he performed their death rites and that the father of the plaintiff had separated from defendant no. 1 and his father as far back as when the plaintiff was a small kid and that the father of the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 were enjoying their respective shares since that time. On issue No. 4, the learned trial court held that the document dated 11-2-1957 Exhibit D-2 demonstrated that the landed property which harka Bahadur Gurung had got from Saney gurung could be enjoyed by that son of Harka bahadur Gurung who would look after Harka bahadur Gurung and his wife during their old age and in pursuance of this document, defendant No. 1 looked after his parents and performed their death rites and as such he is entitled to claim the suit properties. Issue No. 5 was also decided in favour of the plaintiff. ( 6 ) SHRI A. K. Upadhyaya learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff/appellant has submitted that the finding of the learned trial court that the suit is barred by limitation is not sustainable since the learned trial court failed to rely upon the document P-5 even when the defendant had not produced any evidence to disprove its authenticity. The learned counsel has also submitted that there is no evidence on record to show that there was any partition in respect of the property in question during the life time of Harka Bahadur Gurung or that any property was given by Harka Bahadur gurung to the father of the plaintiff at any time. The learned counsel has also submitted that there is no evidence on record to show that there was any partition in respect of the property in question during the life time of Harka Bahadur Gurung or that any property was given by Harka Bahadur gurung to the father of the plaintiff at any time. His submission is that the mere fact that the father of the plaintiff was residing separately from his father Harka Bahadur Gurung does not deprive the plaintiff of his share in the property left by his grandfather Harka Bahadur gurung. Further, the learned counsel has submitted that there is no evidence on record to show that the document Exhibit D-2 dated 11-12-1957 relates to the disputed land. Shri N. B. Kharga, learned counsel for the respondent, has controverted the submissions made on behalf of the appellants. Following three points arise for decision in the appeal: (I) Whether the suit is barred by limitation; (ii) Whether any partition was ever effected by Harka Bahadur Gurung and if so, whether the land in suit was given to defendant No. 1; and (iii) Whether document exhibit D-2 dated 11-12-1957 relates to the land in suit. 1. There was no dispute before the learned trial court that Article 59 of the Limitation act, 1963 applied to the. present case. According to that Article, period of limitation in respect of a suit to cancel or set aside instrument or decree or for the recession of a contract is three years from the date when the facts entitling the plaintiff to have the instrument or decree cancelled or set aside or the contract rescinded first become known to him. Under Article 58, the suit to obtain a declaration can be brought within three years from the date when the right to sue first accrues. The learned trial court took note of the contention of the plaintiff that the mutation of the land had been done by defendant No. 1 in his favour in the year 1992 and the sale deed with respect to that land executed by him in favour of defendant No. 2 was registered on 15. 4. 1994. According to the plaintiff, he came to know about these facts in the later part of 1996 and the suit was filed on 11-4-1997. Thus, according to the plaintiff the suit was within limitation. 4. 1994. According to the plaintiff, he came to know about these facts in the later part of 1996 and the suit was filed on 11-4-1997. Thus, according to the plaintiff the suit was within limitation. To substantiate his claim, the plaintiff produced one document Exhibit P-5 dated 3-2-1996. That document was executed by defendant No. 1 to the effect that the plaintiff could record in his name the disputed plots and that he (defendant No. 1) was executing the document to authorise the plaintiff to enquire into as to how defendant No. 2 had mutated those plots of land in his name without authority of the plaintiff. This document is witnessed by three witnesses, namely, Padam bahadur Gurung, Tikaram Guruiig and another padam Bahadur Gurung. This document was proved by the plaintiff Dhan Bahadur Gurung (PW-1) and Tikaram Gurung, PW-4. The learned trial court did not rely upon this document for the following reasons: (I) The left hand thumb impression said to have been put by defendant no. 1 was so faint and completely lacking vividness that it was difficult, if not impossible, to decipher it; (ii) In the second line of the document the name of the grandfather of the plailntiff was written other than harka Bahadur Gurung though admittedly the name of the grandfather of the plaintiff was Harka bahadur Gurung; (iii) The contents of the documents showed that defendant No. 1 had authorized the plaintiff to mutate the suit land in his (plaintiff's) favour and it was not possible to understand how a person who had already executed the sale deed in favour of defendant No. 2 could subsequently authorise the plaintiff to mutate the said land in his (plaintiff's) favour; (iv) The plaintiff in his deposition did not state anything about the contents of Exhibit P-5; (v) In the plaint, it is mentioned that the plaintiff came to learn about the mutation of the land in favour of defendant No. 1 and the sale of the same in favour of defendant no. 2 only in the later part of 1996, but the plaintiff in his deposition stated that in the year 1996, defendant No. 1 informed him that the suit land which was enjoyed by the father of defendant No. 2 on mashikatta basis was transferred and mutated in the name of defendant no. 2 and further advised the plaintiff to find out the case. 2 and further advised the plaintiff to find out the case. Thus, according to the learned trial court, there were two contradictory versions. One was that the plaintiff came to learn about the sale in the later part of 1996 and the other was that he came to learn about it on 3-2-1996 vide Exhibit p-5 and that the month of February could not be termed as the later part of the year; (vi) Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that in Sikkim when any instrument regarding alienation of any property is presented for registration, the competent authority issues notices calling for objections, if any, from the concerned parties and, therefore, it can be said that the registration has been done after inviting objections from all the parties and, thereafter, it was for the plaintiff to prove that the notice was not received by him; and (vii) Sale deed Exhibit D-3 registered on 15-4-1994 in favour of defendant no. 2 showed that the delivery of possession was made to defendant no. 2 on 3. 7. 1992 and thus the right to sue accrued in the year 1992 when defendant No. 2 took possession of the suit land from defendant No. 1 and so the suit was barred by limitation. ( 7 ) THE plaintiff Dhan Bahadur Gurung PW-1 deposed that in the year 1996, defendant No. 1 informed him that the suit land which was enjoyed by the father of defendant No. 2 on mashikatta basis was transferred and mutated in the name of the defendant No. 2 and further asked him to find out the position of the case. In this respect, he also executed one bandobast dated 3. 2. 1996 in the presence of three witnesses and it was only then that he came to know about the surreptitious dealing between defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2. His evidence is corroborated by Tikaram gurung PW-4 who deposed that in the year 1996 defendant No. 1 and his nephew plaintiff dhan Bahadur Gurung had their family consultation between them, and he and other neighbours were requested to attend the same and then the bandobast deed Exhibit P-5 was executed by defendant No. 1 in his presence and in the presence of two other witnesses. He proved his signature and the left hand thumb mark of defendant No. 1 on Exhibit P-5. He proved his signature and the left hand thumb mark of defendant No. 1 on Exhibit P-5. He also deposed that the defendant No. 1 authorised the plaintiff to find out and claim the landed properties. The evidence produced by the plaintiff has not been controverted by the defendants at the stage of evidence. Defendant no. 1 who appeared as DW-1 did not say that there was no consultation between him and the plaintiff or the Exhibit P-5 was not executed by him. The other witness A. D. Gurung DW-2 also did not depose anything about this document. Thus, the evidence produced by the plaintiff that in the year 1996 there was consultation between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 and at that time document exhibit P-5 was executed by defendant no. 1 has remained unrebutted. This material fact escaped notice of the learned trial court. When the defendants failed to produce any evidence to contradict the evidence produced by the plaintiff, and thus did not dispute the execution of Exhibit P-5, it was not permissible to discard this docuemnt for the reasons given by the learned trial court. The fact that at the time of the registration of documents of alienation, notices are ordinarily issued by the competent authority to the concerned parties, does not conclusively prove that notice must have been sent to the plaintiff also. The plaintiff might or might not have been considered to be the concerned party needing notice. Lapses also occur in performance of duty. If notice had in fact been issued to the plaintiff at the time of the registration, it was for the defendants to prove that fact. No presumption could be raised against the plaintiff merely because of the practice that notices are ordinarily issued to the concerned parties. The reason given by the learned trial court that from the sale deed Exhibit D-3 executed by defendant no. 1 it could be gathered that possession must have been received by defendant No. 2 on 3-7-1992 and so right to sue accrued in 1992 is also difficult to sustain. The land was open land and merely because the document of sale deed was executed in July, 1992 it cannot be said that the plaintiff had notice that possession of the land was given by defendant no. 1 to defendant No. 2 in July 1992 in pursuance of the sale deed Exhibit D-3. The land was open land and merely because the document of sale deed was executed in July, 1992 it cannot be said that the plaintiff had notice that possession of the land was given by defendant no. 1 to defendant No. 2 in July 1992 in pursuance of the sale deed Exhibit D-3. It is true that from the contents of Exhibit P-5 it would appear that it would be illogical for defendant no. 1 to authorise the plaintiff to inquire as to how defendant No. 2 had got mutated the plots in suit in his name and to get the same recorded in his name when defendant No. 1 had already executed sale deed Exhibit D-3 in favour of defendant No. 2. It is difficult to fathom into the logic of defendant No. 1 in executing document Exhibit P-5 because full facts are not before the court. People do at times indulge in seemingly illogical acts. That often happens when one, after having done a wrongful act, tries to be seen to be acting fairly. A wrongful act and an effort to appear to be fair are contradictory acts and when one indulges in somewhat illogical acts in an attempt to appear to be acting fairly, the information disclosed in consequence thereof cannot be ignored on the ground that the act appeared to be illogical. Merely because the contents appear to be illogical, it cannot be said, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the document was not executed or the evidence produced by the plaintiff that he came to know about the execution of the sale deed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2 only when the document dated 3. 3. 1996 was executed by defendant No. 1 was not reliable. The fact that in the plaint the plaintiff had stated that he came to know about it in the later part of 1996 is not a contradiction of such magnitude that would impel the court to reject the evidence produced by the plaintiff even when no evidence to the contrary was produced by the defendants. I, therefore, hold that the plaintiff came to know about the facts giving him the cause of action for the suit on 3. 2. 1996 and as such, the suit is within limitation. I, therefore, hold that the plaintiff came to know about the facts giving him the cause of action for the suit on 3. 2. 1996 and as such, the suit is within limitation. ( 8 ) IT is an admitted fact that the land in question was the exclusive property of Harka bahadur Gurung. It is also not disputed that bhim Bahadur Gurung, the father of the plaintiff, started living separately from his father during the life time of his father. The question is whether Harka Bahadur Gurung divided his properties between defendant No. 1 and the father of the plaintiff and, if so, whether the plots in suit were given to defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 1 Pahalman Gurung has in his examination-in-chief stated that the surviving sons of Harka Bahadur Gurung had got their respective shares from his ancestral propoerties. However, it is an admitted fact that the plots in suit were not the ancestral properties of Harka Bahadur Gurung. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that the landed properties left by Harka Bahadur gurung had not been mutated in the names of the plaintiff and himself (defendant No. 1 ). Plaintiff Dhan Bahadur Gurung PW-1 deposed that the landed properties owned by Harka bahadur Gurung are still in his name except suit plots Nos. 489 and 505 and that he and defendant No. 1 are cultivating and enjoying the landed properties of Harka Bahadur gurung as verbally pointed out by Harka bahadur Gurung and that the landed properties owned by Harka Bahadur Gurung have to be equally divided between him and defendant no. 1. Tikaram Gurung PW-4 has in his cross-examination has stated that the father of the plaintiff was separated from his father Harka bahadur Gurung and that it is true that the plaintiff was brought up after his father was separated from Harka Bahadur Gurung. The fact that the father of the plaintiff was separated from his father Harka Bahadur Gurung does not imply that the father of the plaintiff received his share in the property left by Harka bahadur Gurung. Document Exhibit D-2 also supports the case of the plaintiff that no partition was effected by Harka Bahadur Gurung. Therefore, there is no reason tadisbelieve the evidence produced by the plaintiff that the landed properties owned by Harka Bahadur gurung have to be divided equally between him and defendant No. 1. Document Exhibit D-2 also supports the case of the plaintiff that no partition was effected by Harka Bahadur Gurung. Therefore, there is no reason tadisbelieve the evidence produced by the plaintiff that the landed properties owned by Harka Bahadur gurung have to be divided equally between him and defendant No. 1. There was no partition between the heirs of Harka Bahadur Gurung and as such Bhim Bahadur Gurung did not get any share in the properties of Harka Bahadur gurung. ( 9 ) AS regards the third point, Exhibit D-2 was executed on 11-12-1957 by the three brothers namely Pahalman Gurung D. W. No. 1, Bhim Bahadur Gurung, the father of the plaintiff and Ran Bahadur Gurung the other brother of Pahalman Gurung. The document is in Nepali and the English version thereof as given by the learned counsel for the parties reads as under:"english TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT d-2 DOCUMENT: the cardamom field given by own relation saney Gurung to Shri Harka bahadur Gurung. Date and year 11-12-1957. The cardamom field of Junge Dara, which was given by brother Saney gurung cannot be claimed by a single brother. This cardamom field shall be enjoyed by the brother on whom the parents are ultimately satisfied. We, are the three brothers have signed this document in presence of the Panchayat saying that none of the brothers can claim the produce of this cardamom field to himself. Name of the brothers and signatures: witnesses.--1. Prem Singh Gurung (Thumb impression) (1) Pahalman Gurung (Thumb impression)2. Puma Singh Gurung (Thumb impression) (2) Bhim Bahadur Gurung (Thumb impression)3. Saney Gurung (Thumb impression) (3) Ran Bahadur Gujrung (Thumb impression)4. Gambhir Gurung (Thumb impression)date 11-12-1957"the document dated 11-12-1957 shows that the cardamom field of Junge Dara is to be enjoyed only by that brother with whom the parent would be satisfied. This document does not give any particulars sufficient to relate the cardamom field referred therein to the plots in suit. There is no evidence on record to show that the plots in suit were known as Junge dara. Defendant No. 1 Pahalman Gurung deposed that the document Exhibit D-2 was prepared by one Amar Bahadur Gurung. A. D. Gurung, DW-2 has deposed that the document exhibit D-2 was scribed by him and that the parents of defendant No. 1 were residing with defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 1 Pahalman Gurung deposed that the document Exhibit D-2 was prepared by one Amar Bahadur Gurung. A. D. Gurung, DW-2 has deposed that the document exhibit D-2 was scribed by him and that the parents of defendant No. 1 were residing with defendant No. 1. He further deposed that the father of the plaintiff was residing separately from his father and the plaintiff was a small kid at that time. On the other hand, the plaintiff has deposed that the document Exhibit D-2 is a false document. It is significant to mention that this document Exhibit D-2 was not referred by defendant No. 1 in his written statement and there is absolutely no reason why this document should not have been referred by defendant No. 1, if the documentwas genuine and if it related to the plots in question. Furthermore, it is not at all clear how the brothers could make any arrangement with respect to the plots of the father during the life time of the father. Harka Bahadur Gurung did not sign the document cither as an executant or as a witness. Thus this document does not have the effect of giving the plots in suit to defendant no. 1. ( 10 ) IN the result, I allow the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and decree the suit declaring that the plaintiff has half share in plot bearing No. 489 measuring 3980 hectare and plot No. 505 measuring 6080 hectare situated at Barong Block, South Sikkim as per the boundaries given in the schedule to the plaint and that the other half share belongs to defendant No. 1 Pahalman Gurung and defendant No. 2 Navin Gurung and also for recovery of possession of the half share in land from defendant No. 2. Separate possession of the share of the plaintiff shall be given to the plaintiff by the District Collector or any gazetted officer subordinate to the District collector deputed by him in this behalf as per the provisions of Section 54 of the Code of civil Procedure, 1908. I also decree the suit declaring that the sale deed executed by defendant no. 1 in favour of Defendant No. 2 in respect of the land in suit registered on 15-4-1994 is null and void. 1 also direct that the record of rights be corrected accordingly. I also decree the suit declaring that the sale deed executed by defendant no. 1 in favour of Defendant No. 2 in respect of the land in suit registered on 15-4-1994 is null and void. 1 also direct that the record of rights be corrected accordingly. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed. --- *** ---