JUDGMENT ( 1. ) THE unsuccessful plaintiff who has lost from both the Courts below has taken the shelter of this Court by filing this appeal under section 100, Civil Procedure Code. ( 2. ) A suit for injunction has been filed by plaintiff on the averments that he bought the suit property which is agricultural land and description whereof has been mentioned in the plaint, from Badrilal vide registered sale-deed dated 5-10-1989 and obtained the possession of the suit property. On 13-6-1990 when the plaintiff was not in the village, the defendants No. 2 and 3 by taking help of 10-12 antisocial elements ran over the tractor on the crop which was sown by the plaintiff and a report in the police station was also lodged to that effect and therefore basing this date to be a cause of action since defendants tried to interfere into his possession, the plaintiff filed a suit for injunction against his vendor Badrilal arraying him as defendant No. 1 as well as his wife Sumanbai as defendant No. 2 and against one Hiralal also as defendant No. 3. The Vendor Badrilal did not file written statement, although he was arrayed as defendant No. 1. The defendants No. 2 and 3 filed a joint written statement and pleaded that Badrilal is a drunkard and is also not having his mental equilibrium. He is also a gambler and happens to spare his time among the antisocial elements. It has been further pleaded in the written statement by these defendants that plaintiff was having domain over defendant No. 1 and by providing him liquor, the sale-deed was got executed but infact the suit property is still in possession of the defendants. According to them, the consideration was never paid to defendant No. 1 Badrilal. ( 3. ) LEARNED trial Court framed necessary issues and after recording the evidence of the parties, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff holding that he is not in possession of the suit property. The first appeal which was filed by him, has also been dismissed. ( 4. ) IN this manner this second appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and decree. This Court on 11-5-1999 admitted the second appeal on the following substantial questions of law :- (a) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the court below is inconsistent with the evidence on record? ( 4. ) IN this manner this second appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and decree. This Court on 11-5-1999 admitted the second appeal on the following substantial questions of law :- (a) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the court below is inconsistent with the evidence on record? (b) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the court below is illegal and perverse? ( 5. ) IT has been put-forth by Shri Maheshwari, learned counsel for appellant-plaintiff that vide registered sale-deed dated 5-10-1989 (Ex.P/1), the plaintiff bought the suit property from bhumiswami Badrilal who is defendant No. 1. In the sale-deed, the factum of delivery of possession to the plaintiff has also been mentioned. Learned counsel submits that defendant No. 1 Badrilal who is his Vendor did not file written statement nor he was examined in the Court. Although, feebly it was pleaded that defendant No. 1 was insane but factum of unsound mind has not at all been proved and if the pleading of defendants No. 2 and 3 in respect of insanity of defendant No. 1 is tested on the touchstone and anvil of their own plea in the written statement, the plea of insanity appears to be self-contradictory, because they themselves have pleaded that Badrilal was a drunkard and gambler and was in the clutches of the plaintiff and he was associated with antisocial elements. Learned counsel further submits that findings arrived at by learned two Courts below in respect to possession is totally perverse because no prudent person would digest that looking to the evidence placed on record that possession was not handed-over to plaintiff, hence it has been prayed that by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by learned two Courts below, the suit be decreed. ( 6. ) ON the other hand, Shri Khan, learned counsel for respondents argued in support of impugned judgment and decree. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the records of learned two Court below, I am of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed. Regarding substantial questions of law : ( 7. ) ON bare perusal of the basic document i.e. the sale-deed (Ex.P/1) dated 5-10-1989, this Court finds that after making payment of consideration of Rs. 1 lac, the suit property was purchased. The factum of delivery of possession has also been endorsed in the sale-deed. Regarding substantial questions of law : ( 7. ) ON bare perusal of the basic document i.e. the sale-deed (Ex.P/1) dated 5-10-1989, this Court finds that after making payment of consideration of Rs. 1 lac, the suit property was purchased. The factum of delivery of possession has also been endorsed in the sale-deed. ON bare perusal of testimony of plaintiff Rameshwar (PW2) the factum of receiving possession of the suit property has been specifically stated by him on the basis of sale-deed (Ex.P/1). He has also stated that amount of consideration of Rs. 1 lac was paid to Badrilal. The evidence of Rameshwar has been misconstrued by learned two Courts below. He has stated that after cutting the crops of Soyabean, the possession of suit property was delivered to plaintiff. It is matter of common parlance that in the month of October crop of Soyabean is ready and if this witness is saying that after cutting the crop of Soyabean, the possession was delivered to him, it cannot be construed in such a manner as has been misconstrued by learned two Courts below that after execution of the sale-deed on 5-10-1989 the crop of Soyabean was cut. The plaintiff is further saying that after obtaining possession, he sowed the crop of Wheat. Again it would be pertinent to mention here that in the month of October and November, the seeds of Wheat are sown. Hence, learned two Courts below misconstrued the material piece of the evidence of plaintiff and have held that after the execution of the sale-deed, the suit property was being possessed by defendant since he cut the crop of Soyabean. ( 8. ) ONE important fact which cannot be marginalised and blinked away and which has lost sight of learned two Courts below and they did not pay any heed to it, is the application under Order 1, Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code filed by defendant No. 2 Sumanbai in a suit filed by her. This certified copy of application (Ex.P/2) has been submitted by defendant No. 2 Sumanbai of this suit in her suit filed before Civil Judge, Class-2 Sanwer bearing Civil Suit No. 35A/1989, Sumanbai w/o Badrilal vs. Badrilal and others. In this application, it has been stated that suit property is in possession of the present plaintiff Rameshwar and therefore she wants to implead him as a party. In this application, it has been stated that suit property is in possession of the present plaintiff Rameshwar and therefore she wants to implead him as a party. Thus, defendant No. 2 of present suit namely Sumanbai is admitting the possession of plaintiff Rameshwar. The factum of making payment of entire consideration of Rs. 1 lac has also been proved by the plaintiff. The turning point of the case is that defendant No. 1 Badrilal has not filed any written statement nor he has turned up to adduce evidence denying the factum of execution of sale-deed as well as delivery of possession to plaintiff. Very feebly, in the written statement, it has been pleaded by the defendants that defendant No. 1 Badrilal is insane but this pleading is self-contradictory for the simple reason that in the same written statement defendants No. 2 and 3 have also pleaded that Badrilal is drunkard as well as he is gambler and he is associated with antisocial elements. According to me, both the situations cannot co-exist at one point of time. An insane person cannot be a gambler because in gambling the application of mind is an important factor and similarly he cannot be a member of group of antisocial elements. Nowhere it has been pleaded by defendants No. 2 and 3 that on the date of sale i.e. 6-5-1989 (sic) defendant No. 1 was insane or unsound mind. It is pertinent to mention here that no application has been filed under Order XXXII, Rule 4, Civil Procedure Code by these two defendants stating therein that defendant No. 1 is unsound mind and therefore guardian be appointed. The fact to prove that defendant No. 1 Badrilal was unsound mind and that too on date of sale was on defendants but they did not discharge this heavy burden. ( 9. ) ON scanning the testimony of Dr. Ramesh Kumar (DW1) nowhere it is gathered that defendant No. 1 was unsound mind. At the most, he has stated that defendant No. 1 was suffering from Typhoid which affected his brain also. However, on x-raying his testimony, this Court did not find that defendant No. 1 Badrilal was of unsound mind. Apart from this, this witness is saying that Badrilal was under his treatment in between 26-7-1989 and 4-8-1989. At the most, he has stated that defendant No. 1 was suffering from Typhoid which affected his brain also. However, on x-raying his testimony, this Court did not find that defendant No. 1 Badrilal was of unsound mind. Apart from this, this witness is saying that Badrilal was under his treatment in between 26-7-1989 and 4-8-1989. Admittedly sale-deed has been executed after this date as it was executed on 5-10-1989 and therefore from the testimony of defendants' own witness Dr. Ramesh Kumar it is not proven that defendant No. 1 Badrilal was of unsound mind particularly on the date of sale. Hence, I am having no scintilla of doubt that by virtue of sale-deed dated 5-10-1989 (Ex.P/1) the suit property was sold by Badrilal in favour of plaintiff Rameshwar and the possession was also delivered to him. The substantial questions of law No. (a) and (b) are thus answered in affirmative in favour of appellant-plaintiff and against the respondents. ( 10. ) RESULTANTLY, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment and decree passed by two Courts below is hereby set aside and suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed in toto with costs. Counsel fee Rs. 5000/- if pre-certified. Appeal allowed.