JUDGMENT : S. Panda, J. - Defendant Nos. 1 & 2-appellants have filed this appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 12.4.1983 and 20.4.1983 respectively passed by the learned Sub-Judge, Bargarh in Title Suit No. 89 of 1981. 2. Respondent no. 1 as plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that he is not bound by the registered sale deed dated 28.8.1981 executed by defendant no. 2 in favour of defendant no. 1 and the same is null and void in respect of the schedule land. In the plaint, he specifically pleaded that Schedule-B land is the joint family properties of the parties. Till date, the parties hold and possess the properties jointly. The ROR was published in their names jointly and they are paying the rent accordingly. The disputed land described in Schedule-A is also a part of the joint family properties possessed by the parties jointly. Defendant no. 1 is a stranger to the family as well as to the joint family properties. On the ill-advice of defendant no. 1, defendant no. 2 executed a sale deed in respect of the disputed land on 28.8.1981 without knowledge and consent of the plaintiff. Defendant no. 2 is very weak in mind due to his old age. Taking advantage of his old age, defendant no. 1 pressurized defendant no. 2 to execute the sale deed without any consideration and the allegation of exclusive possession of defendant no. 2 in respect of the disputed land was false, baseless and the same was only a paper transaction. As there was no partition between the parties, defendant no. 2 had no right whatsoever to transfer the joint family properties without knowledge and consent of the plaintiff and the plaintiff was not bound by the same. Plaintiff and defendant nos. 2 to 5 are in possession of the disputed land at their own right, title and interest, the cause of action for filing of the suit arose on 29.8.1981 when defendant no. 1 declared in the village that he had obtained a registered sale deed from defendant no. 2. After getting such information, the plaintiff verified about the truthfulness of the said fact, obtained the certified copy of the documents and filed the aforesaid suit. 3. The genealogy of the parties as given by the plaintiff in the plaint is as follows: 4. After receiving notice, defendant nos. 2. After getting such information, the plaintiff verified about the truthfulness of the said fact, obtained the certified copy of the documents and filed the aforesaid suit. 3. The genealogy of the parties as given by the plaintiff in the plaint is as follows: 4. After receiving notice, defendant nos. 1 and 2 filed a joint written statement. They admitted the genealogy given by the plaintiff. They stated that the ancestral properties were partitioned by metes and bounds between Dharani and Trilochan about 50 years ago. On the strength of the said partition, each of them possessed the properties falling to their share to the exclusion of the other. Dharani sold a piece of land out of his share in favour of the mother of defendant no. 4. Defendant no. 4 is in possession of the said land till date. During life-time of Dharani, he effected a partition between his two sons, namely, Lambodar and defendant no. 2. Such partition took place about 40 to 50 years ago and each of them are in respective possession of their separate shares to the exclusion of the others. In the said partition, Schedule-A land was allotted to defendant no. 2. While he was in exclusive possession of the same, he sold the properties to defendant no. 1 who offered adequate consideration i.e. Rs. 15,000/-. Accordingly, after receiving consideration, defendant no. 2 executed the sale deed in favour of defendant no. 1 to discharge his debt. The plaintiff offered to purchase the said land. As he offered a lower price, defendant no. 2 did not accept his offer. After the said sale, defendant no. 1 possessed the land in question and was doing cultivation in the said land. Defendant no. 1 was a bona fide purchaser of the said land. On the above pleadings, they prayed for dismissal of the plaintiff's suit. Defendant nos. 3 to 5 remained ex parte. 5. On the above pleadings, the trial Court framed as many as six issues which are as follows: ISSUES 1. Is there any cause of action for the suit ? 2. Are the suit properties the joint family properties of the plaintiff ? 3. Is the suit sale vitiated by fraud, undue influence or by want of consideration ? 4. Is the defendant no. 1 a bona fide purchaser for consideration 5. Is the suit maintainable in its present form ? 6. 2. Are the suit properties the joint family properties of the plaintiff ? 3. Is the suit sale vitiated by fraud, undue influence or by want of consideration ? 4. Is the defendant no. 1 a bona fide purchaser for consideration 5. Is the suit maintainable in its present form ? 6. To what relief, if any, the plaintiff is entitled ? 6. The plaintiff examined himself as P.W. 1 and also filed documentary evidence like Major Settlement Parcha, rent receipt and Hal Settlement Record which were marked Exts. 1 to 4. Defendant nos. 1 and 2 examined two witnesses and 'filed the documents i.e. copy of the registered sale deed, voter list, voter receipt, unregistered deed dated 25.10.1955 executed by Baidhar Padhan in favour of Damodar Padhan and the contract dated 24.4.1981 executed by Damodar Padhan in favour of Bargarh Co-operative Sugar Mills which were marked as Exts. A to E. 7. On analyzing the evidence adduced by the parties, the trial Court came to the following findings: (i) The suit properties are the joint family properties of the plaintiff and defendant nos. 2 to 4. (ii) The plaintiff was able to prove the alleged fraud, undue influence, want of legal necessity and lack of bona fide enquiry by defendant no. 1 and the sale deed was obtained without any consideration. (iii) The suit is maintainable and liable to be decreed on contest against defendant no s. 1 and 2 with costs. On the above findings, the trial Court passed the decree in favour of the plaintiff which is impugned in this appeal. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the findings of the trial Court, are not sustainable as it came to such conclusion without any true fact or cogent evidence in support of the same. So far as passing of consideration is concerned, when defendant no. 2 mis-directed that he received consideration from the purchaser in respect of the disputed land and executed the sale deed, the finding the trial Court without any rebuttal evidence to the same is vitiated. Therefore, the judgment and decree are liable to be set aside and the plaintiff's suit is to be dismissed in toto. 9. 2 mis-directed that he received consideration from the purchaser in respect of the disputed land and executed the sale deed, the finding the trial Court without any rebuttal evidence to the same is vitiated. Therefore, the judgment and decree are liable to be set aside and the plaintiff's suit is to be dismissed in toto. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents supported the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and submitted that since the plaintiff proved the settlement parcha and Hal ROR, which reveals that the property was recorded jointly and prima facie shows that those properties belong to the joint family of the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 4, the sale deed executed by defendant no. 2 in favour of defendant no. 1 who is none other than the wife's brother of defendant no. 2 and defendant no. 1 deliberately avoided to get himself examined as a witness in the suit and the witnesses examined on behalf of defendant nos. 1 and 2 did not utter a word to prove the fact that due to want of legal necessity or payment of any outstanding loan, the said transaction was made, it can safely be concluded that the sale deed was executed under undue influence, without any bona fide enquiry by defendant no. 1 and there was no legal necessity for the same. Further, as the purchaser failed to prove that the property was alienated due to legal necessity or he made bona fide inquiry regarding existence of such legal necessity, the said transaction was bound to be declared invalid and the trial Court rightly declared the same and decreed the suit in toto. Therefore, the said finding of the trial Court should not be interfered with. 10. On a consideration of the rival submissions of the parties and an appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence adduced by the parties in the suit, this Court has to examine whether the findings recorded by the trial Court regarding status of the properties is sustainable, in the eye of law; whether the sale deed is vitiated with fraud and it was obtained by practicing undue influence and whether the sale deed was executed for consideration or not. 11. In support of the plea of jointness of the parties, the plaintiff produced the records prepared by the Settlement authority i.e. the Settlement Parcha and ROR, etc. 11. In support of the plea of jointness of the parties, the plaintiff produced the records prepared by the Settlement authority i.e. the Settlement Parcha and ROR, etc. Law is well settled that the records prepared by the Settlement authorities are presumed to be correct in respect of the possession of the parties at the relevant time. From the ROR, the fact regarding jointness of the parties cannot be ascertained and the plaintiff only examined himself without examining any other witnesses who could have supported the plea of jointness. There is no presumption that the family possesses the joint family properties. In the present case, since the plaintiff claimed that the properties are joint family properties, the burden lies on him to prove that the properties are joint family properties. Though defendants 3 and 4 who are the other members of the so-called joint family were made parties, neither they contested the suit nor were they examined by the plaintiff to prove that the defendants along with the plaintiff constitute the joint family, the entire properties belong to the said joint family and there was no partition between the members for which the sale deed executed by one of the members is to be declared as null and void. Since the plaintiff failed to prove the said fact and discharge his initial burden to prove the same, the finding of the trial Court in this regard is liable to be rejected. 12. Law is well settled that the plaintiff will succeed on the strength of his own case not on the weakness of the defendant (See AIR 1954 SC 526 , Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos and Another V. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius and Others) and Nirakar Das Vs. Gourhari Das and Others, . 13. Since the trial Court completely misdirected itself and did not consider the same and only on the basis of the settlement record came to the conclusion that there was no partition in the family and the properties are still continuing as joint family properties is not sustainable in the eye of law and is liable t be set aside. Further from the record, it appears that the defendants examined three witnesses and relied upon Ext. 1-major Settlement Parcha in respect of the Khunta No. 164 of village Nagaon and Ext. Further from the record, it appears that the defendants examined three witnesses and relied upon Ext. 1-major Settlement Parcha in respect of the Khunta No. 164 of village Nagaon and Ext. A the registered sale deed, the recital of which reveals that there was a partition and he himself examined as DW 3 stated that his father sold Jamabahal Tali land allotted to his share to one Apurna who is the widow of Trilochan, the mother of defendant no. 4 who at present possesses the land after Apurna. Defendants 3 and 4 are also separate from each other by metes and bounds and the parties are possessing separate cow-shed and thrashing floor. Since the properties were recorded jointly, they are paying the rent together by collection. His version was corroborated by the version of DW 1. The plaintiff did not adduce any rebuttal evidence whatsoever to dislodge the said facts and while examining himself as P.W. 1 he admitted that defendant no. 4 has a separate house from his house and in between his house and the house of defendant no.4 house, the house of Benudhar Rameswar's house is situated and defendant no. 3 after the death of her husband, got her name mutated in respect of his share. In view of all these facts, the trial Court should have recorded the finding that the parties are living separately and the status of the family was severed. 14. Further, it appears from Ext. 1-Settlement Parcha that the name of defendant no. 3 was recorded in it jointly along with other co-sharers. The defendants rather proved that the widow has a share in the properties and as the family was not a joint family, the property was not recorded in the name of the Karta of the family along. Rather, all the co-parceners' names were reflected in the settlement parcha which proves that there was severance of status in the family at least from that date when it was recorded. In the settlement parcha the co-sharers are not co-parceners. 15. Hence, the finding of the trial Court regarding the status of the properties is set aside. 16. The next point is regarding fraud and undue influence. Since the plaintiff had taken a plea of fraud and undue influence, the onus was on him to prove the said fact. In the settlement parcha the co-sharers are not co-parceners. 15. Hence, the finding of the trial Court regarding the status of the properties is set aside. 16. The next point is regarding fraud and undue influence. Since the plaintiff had taken a plea of fraud and undue influence, the onus was on him to prove the said fact. In the present case, the plaintiff did not prove any circumstance whatsoever as to how fraud had been practised and undue influence had been made. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that by practsing fraud and undue influence, the sale deed had been obtained by defendant no. 1. 17. Accordingly, the finding of the trial Court in that respect is not sustainable and the same is set aside. 18. Defendants 1 and 2 in their join written statement specifically pleaded that the sale deed was executed and defendant no. 2 received adequate consideration of Rs. 15,000/- for execution of the sale deed and after the sale deed was executed, possession was delivered to the purchaser. Since the vendor while examining himself as a witness in the suit admitted that he received the consideration, that admission of the vendor is the best piece of evidence which should have been taken into consideration by the trial Court while deciding the fact whether the sale deed was duly executed and consideration was paid. The trial Court did not consider the said admission of defendant no. 2 who was examined as DW 3. 19. Therefore, the finding of the trial Court regarding execution of the sale deed is set aside for non-consideration of admissible evidence available on record. 20. In view of the above discussions and the findings, this Court sets aside the judgment and decree dated 12.4.1983 and 20.4.1983 respectively passed by the learned Sub-Judge, Bargarh in Title Suit No. 89 of 1981, allows the appeal with costs and dismisses the plaintiff's suit. Final Result : Allowed