JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the parties. 2. The unsuccessful plaintiff in the court below has filed this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 19.07.2008 passed by the Subordinate Judge-I, Palamau at Daltonganj in Title Suit No.67 of 2006, by which learned court below dismissed the suit of the plaintiff for declaration of right, title and interest of the plaintiff over the suit property and for confirmation of possession or in alternative for recovery of possession in favour of the plaintiff. 3. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that the plaintiff was suffering from mental disorder five to six years prior filing of the suit and was under the treatment of the Psychiatrist of Rajendra Institute of Medical Science, Ranchi. The defendants taking undue advantage of insanity of the plaintiff obtained the signature of the plaintiff on blank paper as well as on printed forms and on account of his insanity, the plaintiff was unaware of the nature of documents over which the defendants obtained his signature. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the defendants after taking undue advantage of the plaintiff fraudulently got pay-in-slip signed by the plaintiff and deposited a sum of Rs.1,51,500/- in the saving bank account of the plaintiff in P.K.G. Bank, Haidarnagar standing in the name of the plaintiff in the month of March, 2006. It is also the case of the plaintiff that after regaining his sense, he come to know, of this fraudulent act of the defendants and complained to the respectable persons of the locality. The plaintiff was directed to return Rs.1,51,500/- to the defendants and accordingly, the plaintiff returned the said Rs.1,51,500/- to the defendants. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the defendants also fraudulently and dishonestly obtained the signature of the plaintiff for purchase of Kishan Vikas Patra of Rs.1,00,000/- and got the same transferred on 01.03.2004 and the defendants also fraudulently got a cheque of Rs.1,47,000/- deposited after obtaining signature of the plaintiff, while the plaintiff was in acute mental illness and the defendants also got a registered sale deed No.5677 executed by the plaintiff with respect to the property of the plaintiff as mentioned in the said sale deed for a meagre sum of Rs.3,00,000/-, though the plaintiff never intended to sell the suit property to the defendants. It is also the case of the plaintiff that the defendants put pressure on the plaintiff to execute a power of attorney with respect to the suit property and the plaintiff believing the defendants executed the sale deed while under the impression that he was in fact, executing a registered Power of Attorney in favour of the defendants. Subsequently, the plaintiff came to know that instead of Power of Attorney in fact, the defendant got executed a sale deed in respect of the suit property by the plaintiff. The plaintiff averred that the value of the property could not be less than Rs.10,00,000/-. It is further the case of the plaintiff that there was no contract for sale of the suit property by the plaintiff to the defendants nor any consideration money was paid by the defendants to the plaintiff for purchase of the suit property. Hence, the said registered sale deed bearing no.5677 dated 19.06.2006 being ab initio void is not binding upon the plaintiff and the plaintiff is still continuing in possession of the suit property being the absolute owner thereof. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit with a prayer for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit property and for confirmation of possession or in alternative if the court holds that the plaintiff is not in possession, the decree for recovery of possession in favour of the plaintiff and also for declaration that the sale deed bearing no.5677 dated 19.06.2006 is ab initio void being without consideration and having got executed fraudulently is not binding upon the plaintiff and is liable to be cancelled. The plaintiff also prayed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from putting forward any claim over the suit property and other reliefs. 4. After notice, the defendants appeared in the suit and filed their written statement. Besides the usual defences, the defendants pleaded that the plaintiff had never been mad nor he was suffering from any mental disorder. The plaintiff also prayed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from putting forward any claim over the suit property and other reliefs. 4. After notice, the defendants appeared in the suit and filed their written statement. Besides the usual defences, the defendants pleaded that the plaintiff had never been mad nor he was suffering from any mental disorder. The case of the defendants is that the plaintiff being in urgent need of money for the construction of the house and for repayment of loan incurred by him from several persons, contacted with several persons to purchase the suit land including the house standing thereon but as nobody was ready to pay more than the consideration amount of the said sale deed other than the defendants, accordingly, in the month of February, 2006 in his sweet will, he prepared a paper of contract to sale the suit land and accordingly, the amount of Rs.1,51,500/- was paid by the defendants to the plaintiff out of the total consideration amount of Rs.3,00,000/-. But on the instigation of his daughter and son-in-law and other mischievious persons who are in inimical terms with the defendants, the plaintiff returned Rs.1,51,500/- as he was not ready to sell the property. In the month of June, 2006 as the creditors of the plaintiff pressurized the plaintiff for repayment of the money, the plaintiff again contacted the defendants for purchase of the suit land including the house standing thereon and the plaintiff himself went to the scribe Satish Kumar Pandey on whose instruction the entire recitals of deed was prepared and the plaintiff himself read over the entire recitals of the deed and the scribe also read over the same and the plaintiff found the entire recitals of the sale deed to be correct. The plaintiff himself in the condition of healthy mind and health, wrote in his pen in execution portion of the deed stating therein that on receipt of Rs.3,00,000/-, he has sold 49/100 decimals of land with Pucca house thereon in Mouza Haidarnagar and also mentioned the date as 19.06.2006. The plaintiff himself in the condition of healthy mind and health, wrote in his pen in execution portion of the deed stating therein that on receipt of Rs.3,00,000/-, he has sold 49/100 decimals of land with Pucca house thereon in Mouza Haidarnagar and also mentioned the date as 19.06.2006. The defendants further pleaded that the entire consideration money of the sale deed no.5677 dated 19.06.2006 was prepaid before the execution of the sale deed to the plaintiff and accordingly, the plaintiff handed over the Chutka (receipt of the sale deed) to the defendant no.1 after endorsing his signature directing the sale deed to be handed over to the purchaser- the defendant no.1. Thereafter, the defendant no.1 collected the sale deed from the Registration Office and submitted the same before the Circle Officer, Hussainabad basing upon which, mutation case No.062 of 2006-07 was registered and the Circle Officer himself made inspection and recorded the statement of the plaintiff and on his affirmative statement, the Circle Officer vide his order dated 17.07.2006 mutated the names of both the purchasers namely Ragiri Prasad and Jitendra Prasad and these defendants are accordingly making the payment of annual rent in respect of the suit property. It is further pleaded by the defendants that the plaintiff wilfully received Rs.1,00,000/- through Kishan Vikas Patra which was standing in the name of defendant no.1 and the amount was transferred to the account of the plaintiff on 25.03.2006. The defendants asserted that the plaintiff received Rs.3,00,000/- as stated by him in the sale deed through C.D. number 69 No.976782 to 976791 and through Cheque No.379501 Rs. 49,000/-, through Cheque No.379502 Rs. 49,000/-, through Cheque No.379498 Rs. 49,000/- and through Cheque No.450466 Rs.23,000/-. Before several persons the plaintiff has received Rs.30,000/- as cash amount but the plaintiff suppressed this fact in the plaint. The plaintiff deposited the said amount in his account bearing no.4105 with P.K.G. Bank, Haidarnagar. The defendants also pleaded that the plaintiff was all along in sound state of mind and was managing the entire family being the karta of his family. The plaintiff on his instruction, was also running a grocery shop in his house. The plaintiff never preferred any appeal or revision in respect of the mutation of the suit property in favour of the defendants. Hence, the defendants prayed that the suit be dismissed. 5. The plaintiff on his instruction, was also running a grocery shop in his house. The plaintiff never preferred any appeal or revision in respect of the mutation of the suit property in favour of the defendants. Hence, the defendants prayed that the suit be dismissed. 5. On the basis of the pleading of the rival parties, the learned court below framed the following issues :- (i) Is the suit maintainable as framed? (ii) Whether the plaintiff has cause of action for the suit? (iii) Whether the suit suffers from provisions of S.R. Act? (iv) Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation, waiver and acquiescence? (v) Whether the plaintiff valued suit property properly and Court fee is proper? (vi) Whether the sale deed dated 19.06.2006 is a fraudulent and without consideration as the same has been brought in existence during the course of insanity? (vii) To what relief or reliefs the plaintiff is entitled? 6. In support of his case, the plaintiff examined nine witnesses including him besides the plaintiff produced the medical certificates which have been marked as Ext.1 to 1/c. On the other hand, the defendants examined four witnesses and they also proved the sale deed no.5677 dated 19.06.2006 which has been marked as Ext. A, rent receipt which has been marked as Ext. B and Bank Pass Book and statement of account of plaintiff which has been marked as Ext. C to C/1. 7. Mr. Pandey the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned court below passed the impugned judgment and decree against the weight of evidence in record. It is further submitted that the sale deed having been executed on 19.06.2006 and as the suit was filed on 27.07.2006, learned court below erred by coming to the conclusion that the suit is barred by limitation. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned court below could not consider the oral and documentary evidence in its proper perspective. Hence, it is submitted that the impugned judgment and decree be set aside and the suit of the plaintiff be decreed. 8. Mr. P.P. Gupta the learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand defended the impugned judgment and decree and submitted that the fact that Ext. Hence, it is submitted that the impugned judgment and decree be set aside and the suit of the plaintiff be decreed. 8. Mr. P.P. Gupta the learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand defended the impugned judgment and decree and submitted that the fact that Ext. A is a registered sale deed which was registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, certainly gives rise to the presumption that the same was validly executed by a person of sound mind, so the burden was on the plaintiff to prove that he was of unsound mind to such an extent that he was not able to understand that he is executing a sale deed. It is further submitted that in absence of examination of the doctor concerned who purportedly issued the medical certificate in this case, the contents of the medical certificate has no value. It is also submitted that most of the witness of the plaintiff who claim to be acquainted with the plaintiff has not whispered even a word about his suffering from mental illness of any kind, which certainly indicates that the plaintiff was of sound mind. It is lastly submitted that the plaintiff having miserably failed to prove his unsoundness of mind as pleaded and the learned court below has rightly dismissed the suit, hence this appeal being devoid of any merit be dismissed. 9. In view of the submissions made at the bar, the following points for determination crop up in this appeal for consideration:- (i) Whether the learned court below has rightly appreciated the evidence in record? (ii) Whether the learned court below was proper in holding that the suit is barred by time? 10. Now coming to the second point of determination, perusal of the record reveals that the suit was filed for declaration of right, title and interest and cancellation of the sale deed dated 19.06.2006 and for declaration that the same is ab initio void and is not binding upon the plaintiff. The suit was filed on 27.07.2006, hence, I have no hesitation in holding that the suit is within time and the learned court below erred in answering the issue no.4 against the plaintiff and the finding of the learned court below in this respect is not sustainable in law hence the said finding of the learned court below is reversed and I hold that the suit is within time. The second point of determination is answered accordingly. 11. So far as the first point of determination is concerned, out of the nine witnesses examined by the plaintiff P.W.1-Ramji Prasad in his affidavit has stated that his brother is running a cloth shop over the suit land and the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he does not know for which purpose the suit has been filed nor he knows the case of the plaintiff. He does not know the Khata number of the land of the plaintiff. It is also stated that he has not seen the documents of the property of the plaintiff and he has no knowledge about the suit land. P.W.2 - Angez Alam has stated that Dhura Prasad and Lalan Mehta are the tenants of the plaintiff. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he has not seen the documents of the property of the plaintiff. P.W.3 – Mathura Prasad has stated that the plaintiff has been in possession of the suit land and the plaintiff was mentally weak. P.W.4 – Sweety Devi who is the daughter of the plaintiff, has stated that in the year 2006, the mental condition of her father was not proper and her father was treated by the doctor of RIMS, Ranchi. She has also stated about deposit of Rs.1,51,500/- in the account of the plaintiff and that the plaintiff returned the same to the defendants. She has also stated about the execution of the sale deed by his father in favour of the defendants and the consideration amount was deposited in the bank account of her father through Kishan Vikas Patra without the consent of her father. Her father was treated by Dr. Ashok from 04.04.2005 to 09.07.2006. P.W.5 – Sanjeev Prasad Gupta has stated that in April 2006, plaintiff refunded Rs.1,51,500/- to the defendants. In his cross-examination he has stated that the plaintiff is his paternal uncle. P.W.6 – Baijnath Sao has stated that plaintiff is his Sala (brother-in-law) and also stated that in April 2006, the defendants wanted to get the sale deed executed by pressurizing the plaintiff. In his cross-examination he has stated that in his presence no sale or purchase took place. P.W.7 – Ramji Yadav has stated that the plaintiff has let out the two shops in his house. In his cross-examination he has stated that in his presence no sale or purchase took place. P.W.7 – Ramji Yadav has stated that the plaintiff has let out the two shops in his house. P.W.8 – Jainandan Pandey is a formal witness. He has proved the medical certificate prepared by Dr. Ashok which has been marked as Ext. 1 and the prescriptions dated 13.04.2006, 09.10.2005 and 04.04.2005 which have been marked as Exts. 1/a, 1/b and 1/c respectively. In his cross-examination he has stated that Dr. Ashok is a doctor of mental asylum. He cannot read what was written in the said medical certificate. P.W.9 is the plaintiff himself. He has corroborated the averments made in his plaint. In his cross-examination he has stated that he has read up to class 3/4. He did not deny his signature on the sale deed. He has further stated that he has not read the contents of the said sale deed and cannot say what has been mentioned in the sale deed. He does not know the contents of the affidavit filed by him in his examination in chief. The averments made regarding power of attorney in the plaint are false. 12. D.W.1 – Ambika Prasad Singh has described the suit land. He further stated that before execution of the sale deed, there was negotiation between the parties and 2-3 months thereafter, further negotiation took place and the suit land was sold for the consideration amount of Rs.3,00,000/-. The plaintiff on 19.06.2006 took the D.W.1 and Binod Prasad as identifier and witnesses for execution of the sale deed. The plaintiff got the contents of the sale deed written by the scribe – Satish Kumar Pandey and himself wrote the endorsement in his own pen. The five finger prints of his palm was affixed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff was never mad nor was ever mentally disturbed. On being proved by the D.W.1, the sale deed was marked as Ext.A. The plaintiff executed the sale deed in Free State of mind. Nothing has been elicited in his cross-examination to discredit his testimony. D.W.2 – Binod Prasad has also described the suit land and has stated that the plaintiff took him on 19.06.2006 to get the sale deed registered and got the sale deed typed and at the request of the plaintiff, the D.W.2 became a witness in the sale deed. Nothing has been elicited in his cross-examination to discredit his testimony. D.W.2 – Binod Prasad has also described the suit land and has stated that the plaintiff took him on 19.06.2006 to get the sale deed registered and got the sale deed typed and at the request of the plaintiff, the D.W.2 became a witness in the sale deed. The plaintiff was all along mentally sound and after understanding the transaction he received the consideration amount and himself wrote the endorsement in his own pen and signed and also affixed finger prints of his five fingers. He was not cross-examined by the plaintiff and hence discharged. D.W.3 – Ramjanam Dubey has also described the suit land. He stated that initially the plaintiff agreed to sale the suit land for Rs.1,51,500/- but later on the consideration amount was agreed to be of Rs.3,00,000/- and the plaintiff in presence of D.W.3 deposited the cheque in the bank. The plaintiff was all along being mentally sound and after fully understanding, he executed the sale deed. He never went anywhere for his treatment because he was mentally sound. In his cross-examination he has stated that he is no way related to the defendants. D.W.4 –Jitendra Prasad who is the defendant no.2 has corroborated the averments made in his written statement. In his cross-examination nothing was elicited to discredit or disbelieve his testimony. 13. After carefully going through the evidence, I find that the plaintiff in the plaint himself admitted that he went to the Sub-Registrar office for execution of the Power of Attorney. This pleading of the plaintiff takes the wind out of the sail of the plaintiff that he was of unsound mind on the date of execution of the sale deed. Had the plaintiff being of the unsound mind, he ought not have gone to the Sub-Registrar office himself even for executing the Power of Attorney because an unsound person or a person who is not able to understand the proceeding before the Sub-Registrar is certainly not competent to execute a registered Power of Attorney even. It is admitted that the plaintiff has received Rs.3,00,000/- as consideration money of the suit land but there is no pleading of the plaintiff that he is ready and willing to return Rs.3,00,000/- or he has returned Rs.3,00,000/-. It is admitted that the plaintiff has received Rs.3,00,000/- as consideration money of the suit land but there is no pleading of the plaintiff that he is ready and willing to return Rs.3,00,000/- or he has returned Rs.3,00,000/-. It is not forthcoming from the plaintiff that though he has returned the earlier amount of Rs.1,50,500/- to the defendants, what made him not to return Rs.3,00,000/- to the defendants. I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that in the absence of the examination of the doctor, contents of the medical certificate cannot be taken into consideration. More so, as the P.W.8 himself has stated that he cannot read over the contents of the medical certificate so certainly P.W.8 was not a competent witness to prove the medical certificate. It is the admitted case of the plaintiff that the registered sale deed is executed by him as his signature on the sale deed remains undisputed. So, the natural presumption is that the same has been executed in accordance with law which of course is rebuttable. Several witnesses known to the plaintiff have not even whispered a word about the unsoundness of mind of the plaintiff. The D.W.2, who is an attesting witness of the sale deed has categorically stated in detail about execution of the sale deed by the plaintiff in Free State of mind has not been cross-examined, so in the absence of any cross-examination of the D.W.2, the same is to be accepted. The other witnesses of the defendants, as already indicated above, have also categorically stated about execution of the sale deed on receipt of the consideration amount by the plaintiff and their testimony has not been demolished in any manner. The documents of banking transaction as well as the acknowledgment in his own handwriting by the plaintiff at the time of execution of the sale deed and the fact that it is not disputed that the sale deed is a registered one also supports the contention of the defendants about the receipt of the consideration amount and execution of the sale deed. Under such circumstances, I have no hesitation in holding that the plaintiff has failed to discharge his burden of rebutting the presumption of the valid execution of the sale deed and hence, the plaintiff has failed to prove that the sale deed dated 19.06.2006 bearing no.5677 was fraudulent one or was without consideration or that the same has been brought in existence during the course of his insanity and therefore, the first point of determination is answered accordingly. Thus I find and hold that the learned court below has rightly appreciated the evidence in record in this respect. In view of failure of the plaintiff to prove that the said sale deed was fraudulent one or that the same was without consideration or that the same has been brought in existence during the course of insanity of the plaintiff, the suit has rightly been dismissed by the learned court below. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and decree dated 19.07.2008 passed by the Subordinate Judge-I, Palamau at Daltonganj in Title Suit No.67 of 2006 is confirmed and this appeal being without any merit is dismissed on contest but in the circumstances without costs. 14. Let the Lower Court Record be sent back to the court below along with a copy of this judgment forthwith.