Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 668 (GAU)

Biresh Chandra Paul v. Samarendra Paul

2011-08-09

C.R.SARMA

body2011
ORDER C.R. Sarma, J. 1. This appeal, under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, (hereinafter referred to as 'Code of Civil Procedure') is directed against the judgment and order, dated 22-5-99, passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar, in Title Appeal No. 12 of 1996. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Addl. District Judge reversed the judgment and decree dated 26-8-1996 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dharmanagar, in favour of the Plaintiff-Respondent, in Title Suit No. 02 of 1993. 2. The Appellant, as Plaintiff, instituted Title Suit No. 02 of 1993 against the Respondent No. 1, seeking a decree for declaration of right, title, possession and perpetual injunction against the Defendant No. 1 in respect of the suit land i.e. the land mentioned in the Schedule II to the plaint. The brothers of the Defendant No. 1 were added as proforma Defendant Nos. 2 and 3, while the vendor of the vendor of the Plaintiff was added as proforma-Defendant No. 4. 3. The Plaintiff-Appellant's case, in brief, may be stated as follows: The suit land, measuring.65 acre, as mentioned in Schedule II to the plaint, which is a part of a plot of land measuring.75 acre, as mentioned in Schedule I to the plaint, covered by CS khatian No. 119 and RS khatian No. 272, originally belonged to one Rajani Lal Pal alias Rashik Das Vaishnab. As the said owner died unmarried, the proforma-Defendant No. 4, who was the only son of the sole brother of Rasik Das Vaishnab, inherited the said property, as his legal heir, and continued to possess the Schedule I land along with some other land. The Defendant No. 1, being the brother-in-law of the proforma-Defendant No. 4, in 1983, approached the latter to permit him to stay, temporarily, in a part of the said land, on the ground that, following a quarrel with his father, the proforma-Defendant No. 1 was required to live separately from his father. Therefore, on compassionate ground, the proforma-Defendant No. 4 allowed the Defendant No. 1 to stay, temporarily, in a plot of land measuring 5 gandas of land within the Schedule I land. The said land, occupied by the Defendant No. 1, has been described in Schedule III to the plaint. Therefore, on compassionate ground, the proforma-Defendant No. 4 allowed the Defendant No. 1 to stay, temporarily, in a plot of land measuring 5 gandas of land within the Schedule I land. The said land, occupied by the Defendant No. 1, has been described in Schedule III to the plaint. On 29-9-88 the Defendant No. 4, who was possessing the Schedule II land, by executing a registered sale deed, transferred the same and handed over the possession of the said land in favour of Sri Sashi Mohan Nath. Subsequently, on 25-10-88, Sri Sashi Mohan Nath, by a registered sale deed, transferred the suit land in favour of the Plaintiff-Appellant and delivered possession to her and since then, she has been possessing the Schedule II land as its owner and possessor. Subsequently, on 5-4-93, the Defendant No. 1 removed some trees from the suit land and disputed the possession of the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Plaintiff, apprehending dispossession at the hands of the Defendant No. 1, instituted the Title Suit aforesaid seeking declaration of right, title, interest and possession in favour of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff also prayed for perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant No. 1 from entering into the suit land and removing any trees there from. 4. The proforma-Defendant No. 4, who was the vendor of the vendor of the Plaintiff, by filing a separate written statement, while supporting the claim of the Plaintiff, averred that, during his life time, Rasik Das Vaishnab out of his entire land, sold 10 kanis of land to the father of the Defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and that the remaining land remained with Rasik Das Vaishnab and after the death of Rasik Das, the Defendant No. 4 owned and possessed the same as his only legal heir. He also stated that he sold the suit land and some other land measuring.65 acre to Sri Sashi Mohan Nath, who again sold the same to the Plaintiff. He averred that, after selling 0.65 acres, he kept 0.10 acre of land with him under plot No. 677, and out of this 0.10 acre about 0.05 acre was given to the Defendant No. 1, who was his brother-in-law, as permissive occupier, on the compassionate ground that the Defendant No. 1 had to leave his father's house. The proforma-Defendant Nos. He averred that, after selling 0.65 acres, he kept 0.10 acre of land with him under plot No. 677, and out of this 0.10 acre about 0.05 acre was given to the Defendant No. 1, who was his brother-in-law, as permissive occupier, on the compassionate ground that the Defendant No. 1 had to leave his father's house. The proforma-Defendant Nos. 2 and 3, who were the brothers of Defendant No. 1, by filing written statements, supported the case of the Plaintiff. The Defendant No. 2, in his written statement, stated that their father late Banka Behari purchased 10 kanis of land by a registered sale deed, on 1-2-1963, from Rajani Lal Sadhu and got possession vide khatian 121. He supported the Defendant No. 4's plea that he, being the son of the brother of Rajanilal Sadhu, owned the land, left by Rajanilal Sadhu and that the Defendant No. 4, being the brother-in-law of Defendant No. 1, allowed the latter to stay, temporarily, on a part of the said land (two gandas). The Defendant No. 3 also, supporting the Plaintiff's case as well as the pleas of the Defendant No. 2 and the Defendant No. 4, stated that the 10 kanis of land, purchased by their father, from Rajani Lal Sadhu, was different from the suit land and that the suit land was all along in the possession of the Defendant No. 4, who as the only son of the only brother of Rajani Lal Sadhu, inherited all the landed properties of late Rajani Lal Sadhu, after his death. He also stated that the suit land was sold by Defendant No. 4 to Monmohan Das, who again sold the same to the Plaintiff and that the Plaintiff continued with the possession. 5. The Defendant No. 1 contested the Plaintiff's case, by filing a separate written statement. In his written statement, while alleging that the Plaintiff's suit was barred by law of Limitation and that the suit was not maintainable, the answering Defendant No. 1 stated that Rajani Lal Sadhu, who was the original owner of land, in his life time sold his entire land including the suit land to the father of the Defendants, on 1-2-63, and, on being permitted by his father, the Defendant No. 1 used to live in the said land, covered by CS plot 1325 under khatian 272 since 1975. The Defendant No. 1 further averred that he was possessing the said land as its owner, acquiring the title on the basis of the sale, made in favour of his father, by the original owner. He denied the claim of the Plaintiff that the proforma-Defendant No. 4 was the legal heir of the original owner and also contended that the proforma Defendant No. 4 had No. right to sale the land in favour of the person, from whom the Plaintiff claimed to have purchased the suit land. 6. Upon the pleadings of both the parties, the learned trial Judge framed the following issues for adjudication of the dispute: (i) Is the suit maintainable in its present form ? (ii) Is the suit barred by limitation ? (iii) Is there any cause of action for this suit ? (iv) Has the Plaintiff's right, title and interest and possession over the suit land ? (v) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the decree as prayed for? 7. The Plaintiff, to prove his case, examined five witnesses. The contesting Defendant No. 1 also examined four witnesses in support of his claim. Both the parties exhibited certain documents in support of their contentions. 8. Considering the evidence on record, the learned trial Judge decreed the suit in favour of the Plaintiff-Appellant. 9. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the Defendant No. 1, as Appellant, preferred Title Appeal No. 12 of 1996 and the learned Addl. District Judge reversed the said judgment and decree, holding that the Plaintiff failed to prove that proforma-Defendant No. 4 was the legal heir of the rightful owner to exercise the power of transferring the suit land. While deciding the appeal in favour of the Defendant-Respondent No. 1, the learned appellate court relied on a certified copy of a sale deed, produced by the Defendant No. 1, in support of his claim that 10 kanis of land was purchased by the father of the Defendant No. 1 from the original owner. However, the said sale deed has not been exhibited. The learned Addl. District Judge also observed that the two sale deeds i.e. the sale deeds executed, in favour of the Appellant and the vendor of the Appellant were mere paper transactions and eye wash. However, the said sale deed has not been exhibited. The learned Addl. District Judge also observed that the two sale deeds i.e. the sale deeds executed, in favour of the Appellant and the vendor of the Appellant were mere paper transactions and eye wash. The learned appellate court concluded that the Plaintiff failed to prove that her vendor had purchased the suit land from a genuine person having right, title and interest over the suit land. The learned first appellate court further observed that the record of right established that the father of the Defendant No. 1 i.e. Respondent No. 1 was in possession of the suit land. With the above findings, the learned first appellate court, while allowing the appeal, reversed the judgment and the decree passed by the learned trial Judge. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the Plaintiff, as Appellant, has come up with this appeal. The appeal has been admitted for hearing on the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether the learned First Appellate Court was justified in rejecting the admitted pleadings with regard to the title of the vendor of the Plaintiff-Appellant; (ii) Whether the judgment and order of the First Appellate Court stands vitiated for non-consideration of the khatian Exbt.2. 10. I have heard Mr. K.N. Bhattacharjee, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Acharjee, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant. None has appeared for the Respondent at the time of hearing. 11. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned Senior counsel, has submitted that the learned first appellate court committed gross error, by relying on the certified copy of the sale deed, produced by the Defendant No. 1, without proving the same as per law. It is also submitted, on behalf of the Appellant, that, in the absence of any evidence regarding existence of the original sale deed, No. reliance can be placed on the certified copy i.e. the secondary evidence, without establishing the existence of the requisite circumstances for giving secondary evidence of a document. It is also submitted, on behalf of the Appellant, that, in the absence of any evidence regarding existence of the original sale deed, No. reliance can be placed on the certified copy i.e. the secondary evidence, without establishing the existence of the requisite circumstances for giving secondary evidence of a document. The learned Senior counsel has also contended that, the original sale deeds, executed in favour of the Plaintiff and his vendor, having been proved and in view of the evidence that the Respondent No. 4 was the only legal heir of the original owner of the suit land, the learned trial Judge committed error by holding that the Defendant No. 4 had No. right to sell the land and that the said sale deeds were mere paper transaction. It is also submitted that, the Defendant No. 1 having failed to adduce any substantive evidence in favour of his claim that his father had purchased the suit land and that he was possessing the suit land, on being permitted by his father, the learned trial Judge had rightly decreed the suit in favour of the Plaintiff holding that the Plaintiff was possessing the suit land by purchasing the same from the title holder. 12. There is No. dispute that Rasik Das Vaishnab was the original owner of the suit land. It is also admitted position that Defendant No. 1 and proforma-Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 were the brothers, being sons of late Banka Behari Paul. The Plaintiff's claim is that the suit land was purchased by the vendor of the Plaintiff from the proforma-Defendant No. 4, who claimed to be the sole heir of the original owner and subsequently, the said purchaser also had sold the suit land in favour of the Plaintiff. 13. Though there is No. dispute regarding the said sales, the pleas of the contesting Defendant No. 1 are that the Defendant No. 4 had No. right, title and interest to transfer the land, that his (Defendant No. 1's) father, during his life time, purchased the suit land from Rasik Das Vaishnab and that, on being permitted by his father, he has been possessing the suit land. 14. The Defendant Nos. 14. The Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 i.e. the brothers of Defendant No. 1, while admitting the purchase of 10 kanis of land by their father from Rasik Das Vaishnab claimed that this 10 kanis of land was covered by khatian 121. The Defendant No. 3, supporting the plea of the Defendant No. 2, stated that this 10 kanis of land, purchased by their father in 1963, was different from the suit land and that the suit land has been sold with delivery of possession, in favour of Sri Sashi Mohan Nath i.e. vendor of the Plaintiff. The proforma-Defendant No. 4, claiming to be the only son of only brother of Rasik Das Vaishnab i.e. the original owner, pleaded, in his written statement, that, he, inheriting the suit land, had sold the same in favour of Sri Sashi Mohan Nath. The proforma-Defendant No. 2, supporting the claim of the Plaintiff, in his written statement, stated that the proforma-Defendant No. 4, who was the only son of only brother of Rasik Das Vaishnab permitted the Defendant No. 1, to temporarily stay in a part of the suit land i.e. in a plot of land measuring about 2 gandas on compassionate ground. 15. The learned first appellate court, while reversing the judgment and decree, passed by the learned trial Judge, held that the Plaintiff failed to establish that the proforma-Respondent No. 4 was the legal heir of the original owner i.e. Rasik Das Vaishnab and that he had the saleable interest in respect of the land belonging to Rasik Das Vaishnab. Though the Defendant No. 1 denied the Plaintiff's claim that proforma-Defendant No. 4 had the transferable right in respect of the property left by Rasik Das Vaishnab, as his sole heir, both the Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 i.e. the brothers of Defendant No. 1 supported the Plaintiff's claim. 16. Carefully perusing the impugned judgment and order, it is found that the learned appellate court reversed the impugned judgment and decree observing: (1) firstly, that the Plaintiff failed to establish that the proforma-Defendant No. 4 was the legal heir of late Rasik Das Vaishnab and that he had No. right to transfer the suit land. (2) secondly, that the Defendant Nos. (2) secondly, that the Defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 claimed that their father had purchased 10 kanis of land from Rasik Das Vaishnab and that, a certified copy of the sale deed was produced but due to lack of knowledge of the learned Counsel, the certified copy was not proved and, therefore, the Defendant No. 1 was possessing the suit land on the basis of the said sale deed. (3) thirdly, that the sale deeds, executed in favour of the Plaintiff and the vendor, being made for the same consideration i.e. Rs. 4,000/- and the sale deeds, having been executed on 29-9-88, and 25-10-88 were paper transactions and eye wash. (4) fourthly, as the name of his predecessor-in-interest of the Plaintiff was not mutated in respect of the suit land and the name of the father of the Appellant was shown as the possessor of the suit land, it was not believable that the Plaintiff was possessing the suit land. 17. As the dispute involving the Defendant No. 4's right to transfer the land, belonging to Rasik Das Vaishnab is a mixed question of fact and law and the judgment and the decree, passed by the learned trial Judge in favour of the Appellant/Plaintiff have been reversed by the impugned judgment and order, in order to ascertain the correctness of the findings of the courts below, I feel it just and proper to, briefly, scan the evidence on record. 18. The Plaintiff, deposing as PW No. 1, clearly stated that the Respondent No. 4, being the nephew of the original owner i.e. Rasik Das Vaishnab, was the legal heir of the latter and that he owned and possessed the suit land after the death of Rasik Das Vaishnab. Though PW 1 was cross-examined, on behalf of the answering Defendant, No. contradiction could be elicited to demolish/controvert his evidence, regarding inheritance and possession by the Defendant No. 4. The said evidence was not controverted even by putting a suggestion that the Defendant No. 4 was not the heir of the original owner. Therefore, the evidence of PW 1, that the Defendant No. 4 inherited the land from his uncle Rasik Das Vaishnab, as his legal heir, remained uncontroverted and unchallenged. PW 2, supporting the evidence of PW 1, clearly stated that the Defendant No. 4 was the heir of Rasik Das Vaishnab, who died unmarried. Therefore, the evidence of PW 1, that the Defendant No. 4 inherited the land from his uncle Rasik Das Vaishnab, as his legal heir, remained uncontroverted and unchallenged. PW 2, supporting the evidence of PW 1, clearly stated that the Defendant No. 4 was the heir of Rasik Das Vaishnab, who died unmarried. This witness was the family Priest of the Plaintiff and the Defendant. Therefore, it is believable that he had the knowledge regarding the relationship between the original owner and the Defendant No. 4. Though this witness was also cross-examined, his evidence that the Defendant No. 4 was the heir of Rasik Das Vaishnab remained un-demolished. PW 3 also, in tune with the evidence of PW Nos. 1 and 2, stated that, after Raskik Das Vaishnab, the Defendant No. 4 used to enjoy the suit land. This evidence of DW 3 remained unchallenged. 19. The Defendant No. 1, who examined himself as DW 1, though admitted that the Defendant No. 4 was his brother-in-law and that Rasik Das Vaishnab was the uncle-in-law of his sister, stated that he did not know whether Rasik Das Vaishnab was the uncle of Defendant No. 4. He also expressed his ignorance about the marital status of Rashik Das Vaishnab. The Defendant No. 1, being so close a relative, it is not understandable as to why he expressed his ignorance about the marital status of Rasik Das Vaishnab and the latter's relationship with the Defendant No. 4, who married his (DW 1's) sister. However, he, subsequently, admitted that Rasik Das Vaishnab was the uncle of Defendant No. 4. This conduct, on the part of the Defendant No. 1, indicates that for obvious reasons, he was not willing to disclose Rasik Das Vaishnab's relationship with his brother-in-law i.e. Defendant No. 4. DW 1, who had the knowledge about the sale of the land by Defendant No. 4, in favour of the Plaintiff's vendor, did not make any whisper indicating that the Defendant No. 4 was not the legal heir of Rasik Das Vaishnab or that he had No. right to sale the land. The DW Nos. 2, 3 and 4 also did not state anything with regard to the Defendant No. 4's right to sell the land. The DW Nos. 2, 3 and 4 also did not state anything with regard to the Defendant No. 4's right to sell the land. Therefore, from the said evidence, rendered by PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3, which remained uncontroverted, it stood established that the Defendant No. 4, as the legal heir of late Rasik Das Vaishnab, owned and possessed the suit land, which originally belonged to late Rasik Das Vaishnab. The Ext. No. 2 i.e. the khatian No. 119 reveals that the.75 acres of land covered by Dag No. 677 belonged to Rajani Lal Sadhu and the Ext. No. 9 which was a registered sale deed indicated that the land measuring.65 acres covered by Dag No. 677 of the said khatian was sold by Defendant No. 4 in favour of Sri Sashi Mohan Nath and the said land was subsequently purchased by the Plaintiff vide Ext. No. 7 20. In view of the above discussed evidence, the Plaintiff could establish that the Defendant No. 4, being the only son of the only brother of Rasik Das Vaishnab, was the sole legal heir to inherit the property left by Raskik Das Vaishnab. Nothing contrary to the said evidence having been proved, the finding of the learned Addl. District Judge that the Plaintiff failed to establish that the Defendant No. 4 had the legal right to transfer the land of Rasik Das Vaishnab is not based on evidence and as such his findings that the Defendant No. 4 was not the legal heir of Sri Rasik Das Vaishnab and that he had No. right to transfer the property, left by Rasik Das Vaishnab, are contrary to the evidence on record, arbitrary and perverse. 21. The Defendant No. 1's claim is that his father had purchased the suit land from Rasik Das Vaishnab, by registered sale deed and that he has been possessing the said purchased land. No. sale deed, in support of the said claim, has been proved. But the learned Addl. District Judge relied on a certified copy of the alleged sale deed, which was neither exhibited nor its contents were proved as per law. In his evidence, DW No. 1 stated that the original copy of the sale deed was lost. No. sale deed, in support of the said claim, has been proved. But the learned Addl. District Judge relied on a certified copy of the alleged sale deed, which was neither exhibited nor its contents were proved as per law. In his evidence, DW No. 1 stated that the original copy of the sale deed was lost. Therefore, in order to prove the execution of the sale deed, the Defendant should have proved that there existed a sale deed in favour of his father, in respect of the suit land and that the same was lost. No. attempt was made to substantiate the plea of execution of sale deed. He could have proved execution of the sale deed relating to the suit land, by proving the contents of the deed from the register maintained in the office of the Registrar. Therefore, he failed to prove the existence of such title deed for establishing that right, title and interest, over the suit land was transferred in favour of his father. Mere statement that the certified copy has been produced does not amount to legal proof of execution of a document. The observation of the learned Addl. District judge that the Defendant No. 1 did not prove the sale deed due to lack of knowledge of the learned Counsel is not based on record and such observation is uncalled for. Failure to comply with the requirement of statutory provision cannot be condoned holding that the learned Counsel, representing the party failed to comply with the legal procedure, due to lack of knowledge. There is nothing on record to show that the suit land was the land, purchased by the father of the Defendant No. 1. Fact remains that Defendant No. 3, who is one of the brothers of the Defendant No. 1, in his written statement stated that the suit land was not the land purchased by their father. Therefore, in view of the Defendant No. 1's failure to establish that the suit land was purchased by his father, the learned District Judge committed error by relying on the said certified copy, which was not proved as per law and holding that the suit land was purchased by the father of the Defendant No. 1. 22. Therefore, in view of the Defendant No. 1's failure to establish that the suit land was purchased by his father, the learned District Judge committed error by relying on the said certified copy, which was not proved as per law and holding that the suit land was purchased by the father of the Defendant No. 1. 22. PW 1, in his evidence categorically stated that the 10 kanis of land, purchased by the Defendant No. 1's father i.e. Banka Bihari Pal was not the suit land and that the land so purchased by Sri Banka Bihari Paul was mutated in the names of his other two sons vide khatian No. 206. This khatian has been exhibited as Ext.5 and the evidence of PW 1 remained unchallenged. The said khatian i.e. Ext. No. 5 reveals that 10 kanis of land, covered by khatian No. 206, was initially mutated in the name of Banka Bihari Paul and thereafter the said land was mutated in favour of Sri Monoranjan Paul and Sri Ketki Paul i.e. the Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 who were the other two sons of Banka Bihari Paul. Therefore, it has been established that the said land, purchased by the father of the Defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3, was mutated in favour of the Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 to the exclusion of the Defendant No. 1. The Defendant No. 1 also admitted that he heard that his father had given his entire property to his other two sons i.e. the brothers of the Defendant No. 1. He denied the suggestion that the suit land was not the land purchased by his father. This aspect of the matter lends support in favour of the Plaintiff's contention that the Defendant No. 1 was not given share in respect of the land of his father, for which, on being approached, the proforma-Defendant No. 4 allowed him to stay in the Schedule III land, which was a part of the land (.75 acre) inherited by him from his uncle. The Plaintiff, in his evidence, given as PW 1, stated that on the north of the suit land the Defendant No. 1 had possession. The PW 3 also supported the said contention. The Plaintiff, in his evidence, given as PW 1, stated that on the north of the suit land the Defendant No. 1 had possession. The PW 3 also supported the said contention. The Defendant No. 1 also, in his evidence, given as DW No. 1, admitted that the suit land was mutated in the name of Defendant No. 4 vide khatian No. 119 (Ext.A) and that he having been shown as the permissive possessor, filed objection case No. 25 and that on the basis of the said objection case, the khatian No. 119 was prepared. He further stated that though his name was mutated in respect of the suit land, subsequently, his name was deleted from the record of the suit land. He also admitted that, even after deletion of his name from the khatian of the suit land he did not take any steps to get his name restored. If the suit and was possessed and obtained by the Defendant No. 1 from his father, there was No. reason not to take steps for restoration of his name in the khatian. This aspect of the matter creates doubt about the Defendant's claim that he has been possessing the suit land on the basis of the purchase made by his father. 23. DW 2, who was the gram pradhan (i.e. village headman) stated that, in 1979, a village sitting (meeting) was held and in the said meeting, it was resolved that the suit land belonged to the Defendant No. 1. But the Defendant No. 1, nowhere, stated about such village meeting. That apart, DW 2 stated that he did not know how much land was purchased by the father of the Defendant No. 1. He clearly stated that he did not know the boundary of the suit land. Therefore, as he did not know the boundary and particulars of the suit land, his evidence that the suit land was purchased by the Defendant No. 1's father and that the same was possessed by the Defendant No. 1, cannot be believed. DW 3 stated that the suit land was purchased by the father of the Defendant No. 1 and that Defendant No. 1 was possessing the same. But, in his cross-examination, this witness stated that he did not know the boundary of the land, purchased by the Defendant No. 1's father. DW 3 stated that the suit land was purchased by the father of the Defendant No. 1 and that Defendant No. 1 was possessing the same. But, in his cross-examination, this witness stated that he did not know the boundary of the land, purchased by the Defendant No. 1's father. He gave different boundary of the suit land from the boundary in the plaint. Therefore, as he did not know the boundary of the suit land i.e. the land claimed to be purchased by the Defendant No. 1's father, it cannot be believed that he had any knowledge about possession of the Defendant No. 1 and purchase of the suit land by the latter's father. He expressed his ignorance as to whether the father of the Defendant No. 1 had given the land to his other sons. But as discussed above, from Ext. No. 5 it is found that the Defendant No. 1's other two brothers got their names mutated in respect of 10 kanis of land, in place of the name of their father. This indicates that the Defendant No. 1's father had given his land to his other two sons i.e. the Defendant Nos. 2 and 3. DW 3 also stated that he did not know whether the Defendant No. 1 possessed any land other than the land purchased by his father. He admitted that the wife of Defendant No. 1 used to call him as uncle. Therefore, this witness, being a relative of the Defendant No. 1's, appears to have some inclination to support the claim of the Defendant No. 1. According to the Defendant No. 1 (DW 1) the suit land was.65 acre, but DW 3 stated that the suit land was.75 acre. He, however, stated that he did not know how much land was purchased by the father of the Defendant No. 1 from Rajani Lal Sadhu. As this witness did not know how much land was purchased by the father of the Defendant No. 1, it is hard to believe his evidence regarding the possession and purchase of the suit land, as claimed by the Defendant No1. DW 4 also gave different boundary of the suit land. He, in his cross-examination, stated that he did not know how much land was purchased by the Defendant No. 1's father. He stated that the suit land was.75 acre. DW 4 also gave different boundary of the suit land. He, in his cross-examination, stated that he did not know how much land was purchased by the Defendant No. 1's father. He stated that the suit land was.75 acre. But, according to the Defendant No. 1, it was.65 acre. It is nobody's case that the suit land was.75 acre. In view of the above contradicting evidence given by DW 4 it cannot be believed that he had any knowledge about the purchase of the suit land by the Defendant No. 1's father and the possession of the Defendant No. 1. 24. From the above discussed evidence, it appears that DW 2, DW 3 and DW 4 did not know the description of the land, purchased by the father of the Defendant No. 1. DW 2 and DW 4 even did not know how much land was purchased by the father of the Defendant No. 1, while DW 3 did not know whether the Defendant No. 1's father had given his entire land to his other two sons and whether the Defendant No. 1 possessed any land, other than the land purchased by his father. The land claimed by the Plaintiff has been fully described in the Schedule II to the plaint. The boundary of the land purchased by the Plaintiff vide Ext. No. 7 and the said suit land fully tally. The PW 1 i.e. the son of the Plaintiff could identify the suit land by mentioning the said boundary. His evidence regarding identity of the suit land and possession has been supported by PW 3. The evidence of PW 1 and PW 3 regarding possession of the suit land, within the said specific boundary as given in the plaint remained un-demolished. Whereas the Defendant No. 1 and his witnesses gave different boundary. Therefore, Defendant No. 1 and his witnesses, as discussed above could not establish that the Defendant No. 1 was possessing the suit land i.e. the land mentioned in the Schedule II to the plaint, and that same was the land purchased by the Defendant No. 1's father. It has already been noticed that the Defendant No. 1 failed to prove the sale deed, alleged to be made in favour of his father, in respect of the suit land. It has already been noticed that the Defendant No. 1 failed to prove the sale deed, alleged to be made in favour of his father, in respect of the suit land. Therefore, the Defendant No. 1 utterly failed to substantiate his claim that the suit land was purchased by his father and that he has been possessing the said land i.e. the suit land. 25. On the other hand, the Plaintiff has exhibited the two sale deeds i.e. Ext. Nos. 7 and 9. The Ext.9 is the sale deed executed by the Defendant No. 4 in favour of Sri Sashi Mohan Nath and the Ext.7 is the sale deed executed by Sri Mon Mohan Nath in favour of the Plaintiff. Thus, it stood established that the title in respect of the suit land passed in favour of the Plaintiff. Admittedly the said sale deeds were made on the same consideration value and within an interval of about one month. As the value of consideration was same and as both sale deeds were executed within a short gap, the learned Addl. District Judge refused to accept the said sale deeds as genuine. There is No. statutory bar restraining one purchaser from transferring his lawfully purchased/acquired property to another immediately after purchasing the same and at the same consideration value. Therefore, the findings of the learned Addl. District Judge, in the absence of anything contrary, that the Plaintiff failed to prove that she purchased the land from a genuine person, having right, title and interest and that the said documents were paper transaction and eye wash are not based on evidence. Therefore, the said findings are perverse. 26. In fact, as already discussed, on the strength of the said sale deeds, the purchasers, including the Plaintiff, acquired right, title and interest of the lawful title holder. Therefore, the failure of the purchasers, more particularly, the Plaintiff to get her name mutated, cannot be the ground to negate her claim that she acquired title by way of purchase of the suit land. 27. In view of the above discussion, it is found that the learned District Judge committed error by deciding that the Appellant/Plaintiff did not acquire title in respect of the suit land and that she was not in possession of the same. Therefore, the substantial questions, involved in this appeal, stand answered in favour of the Appellant. 28. 27. In view of the above discussion, it is found that the learned District Judge committed error by deciding that the Appellant/Plaintiff did not acquire title in respect of the suit land and that she was not in possession of the same. Therefore, the substantial questions, involved in this appeal, stand answered in favour of the Appellant. 28. In view of what has been discussed above, I find sufficient merit in this appeal, requiring interference with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned District Judge. 29. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed on contest with cost. The impugned judgment and order, dated 22-5-99, passed by the learned Addl. District Judge is set aside. Consequently, the judgment and decree, dated 26-8-1996 and 31-8-96, respectively passed by the learned trial Judge shall stand upheld and affirmed. Return the lower court records. Appeal allowed.