JUDGMENT & ORDER : Mr. Deepak Maheshwari, J. 1. Plaintiffs/appellants Amba Lal and Harlal have preferred this appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 3.12.1992 whereby learned District Judge, Udaipur has dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs claiming the relief that the sale-deed dated 7.6.1975 be cancelled and declared null and void against him, possession of the disputed land admeasuring 9 bigha 3 biswa except 26,000 sq. ft. land which is already in possession of the plaintiff, be handed over to them, mesne profit @ Rs.5000/- per month be awarded and defendant be directed by issuing mandatory injunction to remove the construction, if any, raised on the property in dispute . 2. Facts giving rise to this appeal are that plaintiffs filed a suit against defendant Mst. Jasoda Bai with the allegations that father of plaintiffs namely late Ganesh Lal was a Khatedar tenant of land admeasuring 9 bigha 8 biswa bearing Aaraji No.2427/2 and 2427/7 situated in Girdanvah Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur. He was an illiterate person and has renounced the world. Proceedings for acquisition of land under Rajasthan Urban Development Act, 1959 were initiated about the said land by way of notification issued under Section 52 (2) on 4.4.1969 and published in Rajasthan Gazette. On the pretext of getting the acquisition proceedings quashed, husband of defendant, who was working as Block Development Officer suggested to execute the sale deed in favour of his wife Jasoda Bai without giving any consideration therefor. Relying upon his assurance, Ganesh Lal executed a sham and fictitious sale deed in respect of said land on 7.6.1975 showing the sale amount as Rs.39,951/-. In the year 1979, defendant forcibly got the possession of the land in dispute with the help of police, except the land admeasuring 26400 sq. ft. An agreement to sale was executed by defendant in favour of Ganesh Lal in respect of 26400 sq. ft. land assuring to get it converted in “aabadi” land. In the background of these facts, the said sale deed dated 7.6.1975 has been alleged to be void ab-initio on various grounds mentioned in para-9 of the plaint. 3. It has been stated in the plaint that father of plaintiffs Shri Ganesh Lal died on 13.5.1978. ft. land assuring to get it converted in “aabadi” land. In the background of these facts, the said sale deed dated 7.6.1975 has been alleged to be void ab-initio on various grounds mentioned in para-9 of the plaint. 3. It has been stated in the plaint that father of plaintiffs Shri Ganesh Lal died on 13.5.1978. Cause of action first arose on 7.6.1975 when the said sale deed was executed by deceiving father of plaintiffs and lastly on 7.11.1985, when plaintiffs came to know through their sons that the defendant has claimed khatedari rights on the disputed land. Plaintiffs have claimed the reliefs as stated above by way of filing the plaint. 4. Defendant denied the facts mentioned in the plaint by filing written statement and stated that the said sale deed is not sham and fictitious but has been genuinely executed by late Shri Ganesh Lal after receiving full and complete consideration for the same. It has also been stated that Ganesh Lal was neither illiterate person nor has renounced the world. Sale deed is a registered document and Ganesh Lal admitted to have received the sale consideration before Sub-Registrar. The grounds alleged by the plaintiffs to show the sale deed null and void are baseless and denied. Plaintiffs were very well in the know of the said sale deed since beginning. The suit has been filed beyond limitation period and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. Learned trial Court framed as many as eight issues, including the relief clause, on the basis of the pleadings of both the parties. PW-1 Harlal and DW-1 Parashuram were examined on behalf of plaintiffs and defendant respectively. After hearing both the sides, learned trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 3.12.1992. 6. This appeal has been preferred only by two plaintiffs, namely Ambalal and Harlal while arraigning other plaintiffs namely Kesulal, Tara Chand, Mst. Basanti Bai and Smt. Shanta Devi as proforma respondents. It has come on record that the respondents/plaintiffs have renounced the interest in pursuing the suit before the trial Court also by filing an application on 5.2.1988, on account of the compromise between them and the defendant. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the impugned judgment is not based on correct and proper appreciation of evidence. It has come on record that the respondents/plaintiffs have renounced the interest in pursuing the suit before the trial Court also by filing an application on 5.2.1988, on account of the compromise between them and the defendant. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the impugned judgment is not based on correct and proper appreciation of evidence. Learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the grounds mentioned by the plaintiffs to challenge the genuineness of the sale deed. The disputed land was ancestral property and could not have been sold out by Ganesh Lal except for legal and genuine needs of the Hindu Undivided Family. Sale consideration was not passed on to Shri Ganesh Lal and he was cheated by getting the sale deed executed on the pretext of getting the acquisition proceedings quashed in respect of the disputed land. It has also been argued by learned counsel that as per Article 59 of the Limitation Act, suit was filed within the period of limitation, as plaintiffs came to know about the disputed sale deed only on 7.11.1985. thus, the suit filed on 16.11.1985 was well within limitation. Trial Court has wrongly inferred that the suit is barred by time. Thus, he has prayed that the impugned judgment and decree be quashed and set aside. 8. None has appeared on behalf of the respondents to contest the appeal. 9. In light of the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellants and the facts mentioned above, I have critically scanned the impugned judgment. 10. Issue No.1 has been decided by learned trial Court in favour of the plaintiffs while coming to the conclusion that the disputed land was allotted to Ganesh Lal by the State Government. Issue No.2 has been decided against the plaintiffs. This issue was to the effect that Ganesh Lal was an illiterate person and has renounced the world. Plaintiff, PW-1 Harlal himself has admitted that his father was a Government employee. He has also admitted that he used to help them in the agricultural work. Further DW-1 Parashuram has also stated that Ganesh Lal was serving in PWD and was living social life as a common man, while living with his wife and children. In light of these facts, the inference drawn by learned Court below against the plaintiffs appears to be correct. 11. Further DW-1 Parashuram has also stated that Ganesh Lal was serving in PWD and was living social life as a common man, while living with his wife and children. In light of these facts, the inference drawn by learned Court below against the plaintiffs appears to be correct. 11. Issues No.5 and 6 have not been pressed, the burden of which was laid on the defendant. Hence, these issues have not been decided by learned Court below. Now the pertinent issues on which judgment of the suit is based are issues No.3, 4 and 7. Issue No.3 is to the effect that whether the sale deed dated 7.6.1975 was sham and fictitious as the same was executed without receiving any sale consideration and relying upon the assurance given by Parashuram. Issue No.4 is whether the said sale deed is void ab-initio in light of the facts mentioned in para 9 of the plaint. Since both these issues are identical, learned Court below has decided them jointly. 12. Case of the plaintiffs/appellants is that on the pretext of getting the disputed land released from the acquisition proceedings, husband of defendant Jasoda Bai, namely Parashuram persuaded Ganesh Lal to execute the sale deed in favour of his wife without paying any sale consideration. It is pertinent to note in this regard that plaintiffs have failed to produce the notification of the acquisition proceedings regarding disputed land as stated by them in para 3 and 4 of the plaint. Thus, the very basis on which the sale deed is admittedly challenged, is completely missing. Even the sale deed has not been produced in the plaintiffs” evidence, cancellation of which has been prayed in the suit. Recital of the said sale deed was very vital for arriving at any conclusion regarding its genuineness or otherwise. In this situation, only oral evidence available on record, remains to be scanned in this aspect. It has been alleged in para 5 of the plaint that husband of defendant was working on the post of Block Development Officer and was having intimate relationship with the then Chief Minister Mr. Jagannath Pahadiya. So, he assured Ganesh Lal to get the disputed land released from acquisition proceedings. But the evidence available on record is just contrary to the pleadings. PW-1 Harlal has stated that Pahadiya ji belonged to his caste and he was in his relationship. Jagannath Pahadiya. So, he assured Ganesh Lal to get the disputed land released from acquisition proceedings. But the evidence available on record is just contrary to the pleadings. PW-1 Harlal has stated that Pahadiya ji belonged to his caste and he was in his relationship. Though, he has stated that Parashuram is also in relationship with Jagannath Pahadiya but DW-1 Paras Ram has denied this fact. In his cross-examination, he has also stated that when they purchased the land, he was not knowing Mr. Pahadiya. He came to know about him only when he became the Chief Minister. Thus, the facts mentioned in the plait in this regard do not stand proved. 13. Insofar as the allegation of getting the sale deed executed without payment of sale consideration is concerned, PW-1 Harlal has stated that none of their family members including his father, received the amount of sale consideration. As against this, DW-1 Parashuram has stated that the sale consideration of Rs. 39,951/- was paid by his wife, the amount was arranged from his father and father in law. Though he has denied to produce the record in respect of the amount paid by both of them, but simply this denial cannot lead to the inference that the said amount was not paid. Learned counsel for the appellants has also argued on the point that defendant Jasoda Bai has not been examined as a witness. But, at the same time, this aspect cannot be lost sight of that even in the plaint, it has been alleged that husband of Jasoda Bai i.e. Parashuram persuaded Ganeshlal to execute the sale deed and he was instrumental in the whole transaction. DW-1 Parashuram has also stated in his cross-examination that though no power of attorney has been written in his favour, but he holds the power of attorney generally on behalf of his wife. In view of this fact, statements of DW-1 Parashuram, who happens to be husband of defendant cannot be brushed aside. DW-1 Parashuram has stated that the whole amount of sale consideration was paid in cash to Ganesh Lal who came to execute the sale deed along with his two sons namely, Ambalal and Harlal. It is also an important fact to note that the said sale deed is a registered document. Failure to tender the same in evidence by plaintiffs is a senior lacuna in their case. It is also an important fact to note that the said sale deed is a registered document. Failure to tender the same in evidence by plaintiffs is a senior lacuna in their case. On perusal of the said sale-deed, the allegation regarding the fact of payment or nonpayment of sale consideration could have been proved. 14. It is also argued by learned counsel for the appellants that the disputed land belonged to the Hindu Undivided Family and the father of plaintiffs was not entitled to sell the same without any legal and essential requirement of the family. In this regard, firstly, it is to be observed that PW-1 Harlal himself has admitted that the disputed land was allotted to his father by the State Government and it remained in his name. He has also admitted that no document is available with him in respect of the land in the name of his grand-father. He has admitted in cross examination that despite the fact that his father was three brothers but other two brothers did not object to it when the land was mutated in the name of his father alone. It simply shows that the land never remained allotted to his grand-father but remained in the name of his father only since beginning. Secondly, PW-1 Harlal has also stated that no such occasion arose in the family for which any amount was required. During cross-examination, he has admitted the fact that his brother Ranglal met with an accident but has denied the suggestion that his father required money for his treatment and for the upkeep and maintenance of his children. He has also denied the suggestion that money was required in the year 1975 to clear off the old debt outstanding towards his father. But DW-1 Parashuram has categorically stated that one son of Ganesh Lal had expired. To clear off the debt and for some family requirements, he had to sell the land. In cross-examination, he has also deposed that these facts regarding the requirement of money have been mentioned in the registered sale deed. Failure to produce the sale deed by plaintiffs leads this Court to draw an adverse inference against them in this regard. 15. To clear off the debt and for some family requirements, he had to sell the land. In cross-examination, he has also deposed that these facts regarding the requirement of money have been mentioned in the registered sale deed. Failure to produce the sale deed by plaintiffs leads this Court to draw an adverse inference against them in this regard. 15. Another ground to assail the validity of the sale deed has been stated in sub-para 6 of para 9 of the plaint that the defendant assured in the agreement to sale executed simultaneously by her that she will get the land converted into the residential one. But the promise was not kept by her. Defendant has completely denied this allegation in the written statement. It is important to note that PW-1 Harlal has not mentioned this ground in his statements. It is also important to note that the said agreement to sale has also not been tendered in the evidence by the plaintiffs. 16. In light of the facts stated above, none of the grounds on which legality of sale deed dated 7.6.1975 was challenged have been successfully proved by the plaintiff appellants. Of course, it can be observed that learned trial Court has not discussed all these aspects in the judgment impugned in required details but at the same time, the inference drawn by Court below remains unaltered in light of the discussions made above. Thus, the inference drawn by trial Court in respect of Issues No.3 and 4 is found to be correct and is in accordance with the evidence available on record. 17. Issue No.7 has also been decided by trial Court against the plaintiffs observing that the suit is barred by time. In para-12 of the plaint, it has been stated that cause of action first arose on 7.6.1975 when the sale deed was executed and lastly on 7.11.1985 when the plaintiffs came to know about the cause of action through their sons. But on complete scanning of statements of PW-1 Harlal, it nowhere appears that who and in what manner informed the plaintiffs about the cause of action on 7.11.1985. On the contrary, PW-1 has admitted during his cross-examination that he was in the know of the sale deed executed by his father since the year 1975. But on complete scanning of statements of PW-1 Harlal, it nowhere appears that who and in what manner informed the plaintiffs about the cause of action on 7.11.1985. On the contrary, PW-1 has admitted during his cross-examination that he was in the know of the sale deed executed by his father since the year 1975. Though he has tried to explain the delay saying that he filed the suit in the year 1985 as the proceedings were going on. But he has failed to explain as to which proceedings were going on. Further, no documentary evidence regarding such proceedings have been placed on record. Thus, the inference drawn by learned trial Court that the suit cannot be considered within limitation on the basis of cause of action allegedly arising on 7.11.1985 appears to be correct. Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to Article 59 of the Limitation Act. This Article refers the period of limitation as three years from the date when the facts entitling the plaintiff for cancellation of the instrument first became known to him. This is an admitted case of the plaintiff that he came to know about the disputed sale deed in the year 1975. On this count, the suit filed in the year 1985 cannot be considered to be within limitation. Thus, the inference drawn by Court below on this issue also cannot be faulted with. 18. In view of above discussions, no infirmity or illegality is found in the judgment and decree dated 3.12.1992. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the plaintiffs-appellants deserves to be dismissed being devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.