JUDGMENT The defendant no.1 in Title Suit No. 343-94 of 2004/1997 of the file of learned 1st Additional Civil Judge (Senior Divn.), Bhubaneswar being aggrieved by the judgment dated 23.5.2009 followed by the decree has filed this appeal under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 2. The respondent nos. 1 and 2 as the plaintiffs has filed the aforesaid suit, they have sought for a declaration to the effect that :- (i) the appellant (defendant no.1) are strangers to the family of respondent nos.1 and 2 (plaintiffs); the respondent no.3 (defendant no.3) had never adopted respondent no. 4 (defendant no.2) as his son, and to declare the two sale deeds dated 28.05.1996 purported to have been executed by respondent no. 1 (plaintiff no.1) in respect of the properties described in schedules ‘A‘ and ‘C’ of the plaint and other sale deeds if any so said to have been executed by the respondent no. 1 (plaintiff no.1) and respondent no.2 (defendant no.3) with regard to schedule ‘B’ land as void and that title in respect of the property described therein has never passed in favour of the so-called vendee (defendant no.1) under the said deeds. A prayer has also been advanced to direct the defendants to vacate the portion of suit schedule land and house described in ‘B’ land in his occupation by paying the rent till such vacation. ORDER 3. The suit has been decreed as under:- “The suit be and the same is decreed in part on contest against the defendants in the circumstance without cost. It is hereby declared that the Defendants 1 and 2 are strangers to the family of the plaintiffs and Defendant No. 3. The defendant no.2 is not the adopted son of the Defendant No. 3. The sale deeds vide Exts. 14 and 15 are void and they did not convey the title. The Defendants 1 and 2 are directed to deliver the vacant possession of the suit property in favour of the plaintiffs within three months hence failing which the plaintiffs shall have the liberty to get the decree executed through the process of the Court. Effect of the decree to follow is that Exts. 14 and 15, the two registered sale deeds are cancelled. Effect of the decree to follow is that Exts. 14 and 15, the two registered sale deeds are cancelled. As per Section 31 (2) of the Specific Relief Act, the Court shall also send a copy of its decree to the officer in whose office the instrument has been so registered and such officer shall note on the copy of instrument contained in his books the facts of its cancellation. Office is directed to forward a copy of the decree to follow, in this suit to the Sub-Registrar for doing the needful as required U/s. 31(2) of the Specific Relief Act.” 4. For the sake of convenience, in order to bring in clarity and avoid confusion, the parties hereinafter have been referred to as they have been arraigned in the trial Court. 5. The plaintiff no.1’s case is that his son defendant no.3 having come in association with some persons of questionable character became an intoxicant addict. The plaintiff no. 1 asserts to be the owner of schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’. The land in schedule ‘C’ is stated to be belonging to private family deity (plaintiff no. 2) remaining under the marfatdarship of plaintiff no. 1, defendant no. 3 and others. It is stated that defendant no. 3 had no male issue and his only daughter namely Sukanti left the house with a boy severing her relationship with the family on her own will. This incident came as a rude mental shock to the plaintiff no.1. In this prevailing situation, the defendant no. 2 in association with defendant no. 3 convinced the plaintiff no. 1 that a power of attorney is required to be executed for management the property of the plaintiffs. It is alleged that the defendant no.2 arranging a deed writer of his choice with his connivance as well as those witnesses, first of all brought a deed of acknowledgment of adoption into being purported to have been executed by the defendant no. 3. Later when he could realize that such a deed of acknowledge of adoption would not suffice the mischievous in aim of grabbing the property and prevent Sukanti from asserting her right over the suit property at any future point of time, he again got two registered sale deeds created. It is stated that the plaintiff no. 3. Later when he could realize that such a deed of acknowledge of adoption would not suffice the mischievous in aim of grabbing the property and prevent Sukanti from asserting her right over the suit property at any future point of time, he again got two registered sale deeds created. It is stated that the plaintiff no. 1 was not in a normal state of mind at that point of time and had never executed such deeds being aware of their contents, the nature and purpose. It is also alleged that the transaction of sale as shown are without any consideration and all the deeds have come into being by perpetration of fraud and mispresentation as to the nature and character touching the root. Defendant No. 2 thus having been allowed to stay in the plaintiff no. 1’s house, the plaintiff no. 1 had placed full faith and confidence on him which have been abused in this way for serving oblique purpose. 6. The defendant no. 3 supporting the case of the plaintiffs has joined in the prayer made in respect of the declaration that the said sale deeds are void having come into being by practicing fraud and by way of mispresentation without consideration at the behest of the defendant nos. 1 and 2. 7. The defendant nos. 1 and 2 in their written statement while traversing the plaint averments asserted that the plaintiff no. 1 has duly sold the suit land to defendant no. 1 and when the deeds are not the outcome of mispresentaion as alleged and have been duly executed by the plaintiff no. 1 knowing fully well about the purpose and object as also their contents, the challenge made by the plaintiffs is untenable. It is also said that the plaintiff has executed such deeds out of free will and on her own volition and desire and therefore, right, title and interest in respect of the property covered under the two sale deeds have legally passed on to the hands of the defendant no. 1 who has been clothed with the right, title, interest and possession of the same being so delivered pursuant to the sale. 8. The trial Court more importantly has taken up issue nos. 1 who has been clothed with the right, title, interest and possession of the same being so delivered pursuant to the sale. 8. The trial Court more importantly has taken up issue nos. 1,2,5,6 and 10 which concern with the cause of action for filing the suit; its maintainability; the validity of the sale deeds purported to have been executed by the plaintiff no. 1 and defendant no. 3 in favour of other defendants since those are all inter twined. The trial Court upon analysis of evidence on record having arrived at factual findings with regard to disputed questions of fact in the touchstone of the settled position of law as stated in the judgment, has answered that the sale deeds i.e. Exts. 14 and 15 have been taken from plaintiff no. 1 by way of mispresentation and therefore those are void and inoperative in the eye of law and no title in respect of the properties described therein has passed unto the defendant no. 1. It is further held that the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit property and having the right to possess the same as such and are therefore entitled to read over the possession. Accordingly, the suit has been decreed as at quoted in para 3 of this judgment. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial Court has clearly erred both on fact and law by answering the crucial issues in ultimately holding the sale deeds under Exts. 14 and 15 to be void and to have clothed the vendee i.e. defendant no. 1 with no title followed by their cancellation. It is contended that the trial Court’s discussion on evidence and their application in factually concluding that the sale deeds are of no value in the eye of law for the reasons stated by the plaintiffs is absolutely perverse and untenable. According to him, the evidence on record as well as the conduct of the parties in dealing with such property if are cumulatively viewed the conclusion has to be that the sale deeds under Exts. 14 and 15 are unimpeachable, wherein no such legal or factual the deficiency remains. In view of all these, he urges that the findings of the trial Court be set aside and consequently the suit of the plaintiffs be dismissed. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 14 and 15 are unimpeachable, wherein no such legal or factual the deficiency remains. In view of all these, he urges that the findings of the trial Court be set aside and consequently the suit of the plaintiffs be dismissed. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 submitted all in favour of the findings returned by the trial Court in respect of those crucial issues. According to him, the evidence on record on being properly appreciated clearly lead for the answers as returned by the trial Court in so far as the issues touching the validity of the sale deeds under Exts. 14 and 15 are concerned. It is submitted that with the relationship between the so-called vendor and the vendee getting so created after an incident as established through evidence and the faith and confidence reposed by the vendor upon the so-called vendee, the burden of proof that the sale deeds fulfilled all the criterias as regards due execution, passing of consideration, delivery of possession etc clearly lies upon vendee and he having failed to discharge the same by leading acceptable evidence the answer has rightly gone against him. 11. The sale deeds Exts. 14 and 15 are seen to have come into being on 28.05.1996. The suit has been filed on 20.02.1997, mainly questioning those sale deeds. The plaintiffs alleged fraudulent activities being resorted to by way of mispresentaion as regards the nature and character of the documents and she claims that the defendant no. 2 created the sale deeds executed in the guise of a power of attorney, taking advantage of her prevailing stressful mental condition in view of the unfortunate incident of elopement of Sukanti, the only daughter of defendant no. 3, when the presence of defendant no. 3 was as of a curse and liability as he was remaining under intoxication all throughout. When the said sale deeds came into being, the executants, plaintiff no. 1 was about 75 years old. The view taken by the trial Court that just because of the fact that the plaintiff no. 1 has put her signature, the burden of proof of lies on her that she being not aware of the nature of the documents and their contents has signed on the deeds in question, on the admitted factual settings is unsupportable in the eye of law. 1 has put her signature, the burden of proof of lies on her that she being not aware of the nature of the documents and their contents has signed on the deeds in question, on the admitted factual settings is unsupportable in the eye of law. The trial Court appears to have stated so out of confusion that since the plaintiff no. 1 has signed, she is to be said to be a literate person therefore the settled position of law holding the field with regard to the resting of the burden of proof of the sale deeds made by pardanashin lady which has the applicability also to old person hailing from such background do not come into play in the case on hand. That in my considered view cannot be countenanced with. 12. The settled position of law holding the field of proof of sale made by paradarshin lady which has the applicability also to illiterate persons hailing from rural background as well as fairly old and infirm persons can be traced from the decision in case of “Farid-un- Nisha Vrs. Munishi Muktar decision of Privy Council; AIR 1925 P.C. 204 ”:- “The law throws around her a special cloak of protection. It demands that the burden of proof shall in such a case rest, not with those who attack, but with those who found upon the deed, and the proof must go so far as to show affirmatively and conclusively that the deed was not only executed by, but was explained to, and was really understood by the granter. In such cases, it must also, of course, be established, that the deed was not signed under duress, but arose from the free and independent will of the granter. The law as just stated too well settled to be doubted or upset.” xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx “The law of India contains well known principles for own disadvantage when they have not the usual means of fully understanding the nature and effect of what they are doing. In this it has only been given the special development, which Indian social usages make necessary, to the general rules of English Law, which protect persons, whose disability make them dependent upon or subject them to the influence of others, even though nothing in the nature of deception or coercion may have occurred. In this it has only been given the special development, which Indian social usages make necessary, to the general rules of English Law, which protect persons, whose disability make them dependent upon or subject them to the influence of others, even though nothing in the nature of deception or coercion may have occurred. This is part of law relating to personal capacity to make binding transfers or settlements of property of any kind.” The position thus emerges that executants being a pardanashin woman, the deed was read out to her it must further be shown that it was explained to her, or that she understood its conditions and effect and that the explanation included all material points as well as the general nature of transaction. The principle upon which the law accords protection as above its founded on equity and good conscience. “ In the instant case the learned Munsif, and on appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge found concurrently that the two widows put their thumb marks without understanding the true import of the document. Imam, J. in second appeal reversed the said finding on the ground that they were visited by an erroneous view of the law in the matter of burden of proof. The judgment, if we may say so with respect, consists of propositions which appear to be contradictory. The learned Judge after reviewing the case law on the subject, concludes his discussion by holding that it was the duty of the plaintiff to prove that there was fraud committed and that, as that had not been established, the question whether the document was read over and explained to the plaintiff in his opinion, in the circumstances, did not arise. This proposition, in our view is clearly wrong and is contrary to the principles laid down by the Privy Council in a series of decisions. In India, pardanashin ladies have been given a special protection in view of the social conditions of the time they are presumed to have an imperfect knowledge of the world, as by the paradah system they are practically excluded from social intercourse and communion with the outside world…. xx xx xx “…….. The legal position has been very well-settled. Shortly it may be stated thus. xx xx xx “…….. The legal position has been very well-settled. Shortly it may be stated thus. The burden of proof shall always rest upon the person who seeks to sustain a transaction entered into with a paradanashin lady to establish that the said document was executed by her after clearly understanding the nature of the transaction. It should be established that it was not only her physical act but also her mental act. The burden can be discharged not only by proving that the document was explained to her and that she understood it, but also by other evidence, direct and circumstantial. “ 13. As held by this Court in Chandal Bewa v. Madhav Panda and others XXVI (1960) CLT 304, that when a question arises as to whether the document has duly been executed by an old and illiterate lady belonging to a village, in order that the documents may be enforced against her, or, as a matter of that, in order that it may be found by the Court that the documents were properly executed, the vendee must prove that the documents were read over and explained to the illiterate executant, who is a lady, and she knew the nature and character of the transactions while she became a wiling party to the documents and particularly that she was aware of the acreage involved in the transactions. On the aforesaid, this Court then has taken a view that there is no justification as to why a rule applicable to a paradanashin ladies on the ground of their ignorance and illiteracy should be restricted to that class only and should not also apply to the case of a poor lady who is equally ignorant and illiterate, but is not paradanashin, simply because she does not belong to that class, the object of the rule of law being to protect the weak and the helpless, the distressed and the down-trodden and it should not be restricted to a particular class or community. Even in the case of a lady who is outside the paradanashin class, it is for those who deal with her to establish that she had the capacity of understanding that she has been entering into the transaction voluntarily and with full knowledge and import of what the transactions actually meant. In case of Prasanna Kumar Giri vrs. Even in the case of a lady who is outside the paradanashin class, it is for those who deal with her to establish that she had the capacity of understanding that she has been entering into the transaction voluntarily and with full knowledge and import of what the transactions actually meant. In case of Prasanna Kumar Giri vrs. Radhashyma Paul and others 70 (1990) CLT 720, it has also been so held. Same is the view taken in case of Kumadei Vrs. Md. Abdul Latif 1993 (II) OLR 568. Reliance has been placed upon the decision in Smt. Kharbuja Kaer vrs. Jangbahadur and others, AIR 1963 SC 1203 , that as regards documents taken from a paradanashin women, the Court has to ascertain that the party executing them has a free agent and has been duly informed of what she was about that reason for the rule is, that ordinary presumption that a person understands the document to which he has affair his name does not apply in case of a paradanashin women that burden shall always rests upon the person who seeks to sustain a transaction entered into with a paradanashin lady to establish that the said document was entered into by her after clearly understanding the nature of the transaction that it should be established that it was not only her physical act but also her mental act and that the burden can be discharged not only by proving that the document was explained to her and that she understood it but also by other evidence direct and circumstantial. 14. In case of “Krushan Chandra Patra and another Vrs. Kami Bewa and another” 1988 (2) O.L.R. -582, it has been enunciated that the situation relating to the document executed by paradanashin women and illiterate person, the onus lies on the person who derives the benefit under the document to prove and establish that the executants had executed the document after having full knowledge of the contents as well as its effect and consequences. Further in case of “Rankanidhi Sahu Vrs. Further in case of “Rankanidhi Sahu Vrs. Nanda Kishore Sahu” AIR 1990 Orissa-64, this Court while holding the principles governing proof of execution of document taken from paradaashin woman to be actually applicable to the document taken from an illiterate woman, reiterated further that the burden is heavy on the person getting advantage under the document to establish that the contents of the document were readover and explained to her, she understood the same, she had independent advise at the relevant time, and that the execution of the document was not only a physical act, but also a mental act. In the said case, while alternatively holding that the document under challenge therein was not merely executed, it was held to be void and inoperative document conferring no title in respect of immovable property covered under the said transaction. 15. This Court in case of “Narayan Mishra and two others Vrs. Champa Dibya” in (60) 1985 C.L.T.-487 have held that the disposition of such nature made must be found to have been substantially understood and must really be the mental act, as its execution is the physical execution of the person who makes it. The words of caution for the Court are that the Court must be satisfied that the deed has been explained to and understood by the party under disability either before execution or after it, under situations showing that the deed has been executed with the full knowledge and comprehension. Mere execution by such a person although not accompanied by duress, protest or obvious signs of understanding or one of comprehension itself not the real proof of true understanding mind of the executants. It must be proved affirmatively and concluded that the deed was not only executed by but also explained to and really understood by the grantor. The Courts have been asked to insist the proof that the lady had independent legal advise although in variable terms depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case to case. Generally, the Courts have to demand affirmative to prove on the subject of the lady’s intelligent understanding and execution of deed and the Court would not repeatedly hold that this onus to have been discharged where it has not been shown that the lady had any independent advise. The true nature of transaction must be proved to have been understood by the executants. 16. The true nature of transaction must be proved to have been understood by the executants. 16. The protection applicable to a pardanashin woman can be extended to illiterate and rustic village woman or to documents made by old, invalid inform and illiterate persons (Krisha Mohan Kul – Vrs. Pratima Maity AIR 2003 SC 5351) In case of “Karunamayee Vrs. Maya” A.I.R. 1948 Cal.- 84, it has been emphatically held that those who seek to affect paradanashin woman with liability under the instrument are bound to prove that they had knowledge of the nature and character of the transaction, that they had some independent and disinterested adviser in the matter and that they executed the instrument fully understanding what were about in doing so. In several other cases, it has also been held that when a Court in dealing with disposition of property by pardanashin woman ought to be satisfied that the transaction was explained to her specially in a case where, without legal assistance, she executed document written in a language she did not understand, which deprived of all her property {Ashgar V. Delroos I.L.R.-3 Cal. 324 (P.C.) and Amarnath Vrs. Achan I.L.R. 14 All. -420 (P.C.)} Where an instrument has not been properly explained so that she did not understand its contents and effect or did not know what liabilities she was incurring, the transaction cannot stand”. 17. In case of Satish V Kali Dasi 34 C.L.J.-529:- “The position settled is that when the Court is called upon to deal with a deed executed by a pardanashin lady, it must satisfy itself or evidence, first fact that the deed was actually executed by her with full understanding of what she was about to do; secondly, that she had full knowledge of the nature and effect of the transaction in which she is said to have entered; and thirdly, that she had independent and disinterested advise in the matter. The cases fall broadly into two groups, namely, first- the cases where the person who seeks to hold the lady to the terms of her deed is one who stood towards her in a fiduciary character and secondly, the cases where the persons who seeks enforce the deed was an absolute stranger. The cases fall broadly into two groups, namely, first- the cases where the person who seeks to hold the lady to the terms of her deed is one who stood towards her in a fiduciary character and secondly, the cases where the persons who seeks enforce the deed was an absolute stranger. The Court in former class of cases will act with great caution and will presume confidence put and influence exerted, in the later class of cases the Court will require the confidence and influence to be proved intrinsically. If the confidence is reposed and it is abused, the Court will grant relief.” 18. In Shree Thakurjee Vrs. Ramdei, 59 M.L.J. 14 (P.C.) it has been held that where the facts disclose a confidential relation between the parties and also establish that the deed was harsh and unconscionable, the burden of proving absence undue influence rests on the party seeking to support the deed. Its also the position settled in a plethora of decisions standing in a confidential relation towards others cannot entitle themselves to hold the benefits which those others have conferred upon them unless they can show to the satisfaction of the Court, the person by whom the benefits have been conferred had competent and independent advice in conferring them. 19. Let us now proceed to examine the fact and circumstance as emanate from the evidence on record in the light of the principles enunciated in the above cited cases. It is a case of challenge to the purported execution of two sale deeds which are Ext. 14 by an old lady (plaintiff no. 1) then about 75 years and Ext. 15 by that old lady (plaintiff no.1) with her son (defendant no.3) on one day i.e. 28.05.1996. By the deed i.e. Ext. 14, the agricultural properties are purported to have been sold to defendant no.1 who is the wife of defendant no.2 whereas by Ext. 15 the homestead land and the property of the deity have been sold by the plaintiff no. 1 and her son, the defendant no. 3 to that defendant no. 1. It is stated that for some unfortunate incident, the defendant no.2 having come in contact with plaintiff no. 1 and her son, the defendant no. 3, the defendant no. 2 frequently came to her house and stayed. During that stressful period under which the plaintiff no. 1 and her son, the defendant no. 3 to that defendant no. 1. It is stated that for some unfortunate incident, the defendant no.2 having come in contact with plaintiff no. 1 and her son, the defendant no. 3, the defendant no. 2 frequently came to her house and stayed. During that stressful period under which the plaintiff no. 1, was passing through, he stood as a pillar of support by giving the assurance that no harm could be done by the daughter of defendant no. 3 and her husband who has their axe to grind against the plaintiff no. 1 and chasing in that direction. The plaintiff no. 1 being examined as P.W. 1 when has so stated in support of her plaint case, there is evasive denial by the defendant nos. 1 and 2 on the score of said relationship being established. The defendant no. 1 has been examined as D.W.2. In her evidence-in-chief, she has not breathed anything about the same and her entire evidence is confined to the execution and registration of the sale deeds. The defendant no. 2 has not come to the witness box and there remains no such explanation on that score that even though there was specific allegation against him and he was fighting out the case together with her wife, the defendant no. 1 by filing written statement jointly and that too engaging lawyer of their choice. In the situation, obvious inference gets drawn that he is not coming to the depose in denial of all those allegation and it is just for avoidance, lest truth as regards his involvement would come to surface running against his wife’s claim leading to support of the plaintiffs case, those evidence let in by the plaintiffs as regards the fact that the defendant no. 2 had established the relationship with them under that stressful mental condition during those days and the plaintiff no. 1 reposing confidence on him, is seen to have been proved by preponderance of probabilities, this gets full support from the document, Ext. 7 which is not pressed into service. That document is the deed of acknowledgement of adoption purported to have been executed by defendant no. 3 with the consent of plaintiff no. 1 in favour of defendant no. 2. 7 which is not pressed into service. That document is the deed of acknowledgement of adoption purported to have been executed by defendant no. 3 with the consent of plaintiff no. 1 in favour of defendant no. 2. The purpose of execution of said document is to give recognition to the defendant no.2 in the society as the adoption son of defendant no. 3. The factum adoption acknowledged there in is stated to have been taken place fourteen years prior to the documentation when the fact remains that the defendant no. 3 is not issueless. This creates grave suspicion in the mind and that also can be seen that since it goes against the right of defendant no. 1 and he is also not given any explanation on this aspect and totally avoiding. It is stated that the necessity for the sale deeds, was because of the pressing need to repay the money which had been incurred by the plaintiffs. But there is no recital of the necessity of the deity as regards the diet’s property which have also been sold. It appears from the Ext. 14 that property measuring Ac. 0.73 decimals have been sold and that was recorded in the name of plaintiff no. 1, whereas under Ext. 15, Ac 0.14 decimals of land have been sold which concerns with not only the property in the name of plaintiff no. 1 but also that of the deity. The Record of Right of those lands have been marked as Exts. 2 to 4. It is seen that under the two sale deeds all those lands have been sold. No such evidence has come to surface that either the plaintiff no. 1 or the defendant no. 3 or the plaintiff no.2, the deity has any other land left to their credit. In the situation, it stands proved that by those two transactions, the plaintiff no.1, her son, the defendant no. 3 as well as the deity, the plaintiff no. 2 have been rendered landless and more importantly homeless coming down to the street overnight in taking shelter under the sky. With the above features standing proved, in this case no evidence has been let in by the defendant nos. 1 and 2 to show about the pressing need of the plaintiffs and the defendant no. 3 to sale the property. With the above features standing proved, in this case no evidence has been let in by the defendant nos. 1 and 2 to show about the pressing need of the plaintiffs and the defendant no. 3 to sale the property. The evidence of D.W.1 is in general term which makes no sense and under the circumstance cannot be accepted. The consideration involved in both the sale deeds taken together comes to Rs. 20,000/-. The consideration said to have been paid under Ext. 14 being Rs. 15,000/-, the consideration paid for the land covered under Ext. 15 is stated to Rs. 5,000/-. It clearly seen from said two documents as per the endorsements on their reverse that for both the sale deeds, proceedings under the provision of Stamp Act had been initiated when the authority found the subject matter i.e. landed properties to have been undervalued so as to evade the stamp duties and the registration fees. Finally, the valuation of the property under Ext. 15 has been determined under Rs. 21,900/- when the property under Ext. 15 has been valued at Rs. 1,68,000/-. Pursuant to the orders passed by the competent authority in U.V. Case No. 2324 of 1996 and U.V. Case No. 147 of 2002, the deficit stamp duty and registration fees have been paid by the defendant no. 1 who has so admitted in evidence. This proves that proper valuation had not been stated to have been paid. The defendant no. 1 being a party to the said proceeding has not challenged the same and has surrendered to the ultimate orders therein. Now importantly, the said aspect is not also explained in evidence in any manner. The defendant no.1 in her evidence in-chief is not stating about the quantum of consideration involved in any of the sale deeds and her evidence is that the consideration money (not stating the quantum involved in each sale deed or ever total under both) was paid to the vendors. She stated to have paid the consideration money to the plaintiff no. 1 in presence of her son i.e. the defendant no. 3 and a new story is introduced that it is her father who has paid the money as he was looking after the documentation part. Interestingly, when she states have paid the balance consideration amount of Rs. 20,000/- she also states that her father had paid part consideration money before. 1 in presence of her son i.e. the defendant no. 3 and a new story is introduced that it is her father who has paid the money as he was looking after the documentation part. Interestingly, when she states have paid the balance consideration amount of Rs. 20,000/- she also states that her father had paid part consideration money before. The recital in the sale deeds however run contrary as if the consideration has been paid on that day of execution. She again states that consideration money was paid in presence of the deed writer. It is not stated that as to how and why the defendant no.3 came to join as one of the vendors in the sale deeds under Ext. 15. The witnesses have admitted to have not seen the payment of consideration money. Defendant no.1 has been described as the daughter of Govinda Pani in the sale deed under Ext. 14 whereas in Ext. 15 she has been shown as the wife of Govinda Pani when fact remains that she is the wife of Umakanta and she states that by that time she had not married. This defendant no. 1 has stated that the scribe of sale deed under Ext. 14 namely Chittaranjan Naik had read over the contents of the said deed to the plaintiff no. 1, herself and others. If that is so, how such an important mistake had gone unnoticed and uncorrected that this defendant no. 1 being not married had been shown as married and that too, her father has been described as her husband. It shows the undue haste in which the sale deeds have been prepared, that there was hardly any occasion for anyone to go through the same in verifying the details and by employing two scribes those came to be written. The defendant no. 1 has never taken any step to correct the same nor has raised any objection to that. Ext. 14 when shows that the deed writer had made the endorsement that the contents were read over and explained to the executants, he himself after giving the endorsement has not signed under it and on the other hand the executants and the witnesses have signed below, as if they explained. In Ext.15, there remains mere endorsement that the contents of the deeds have been read over. In Ext.15, there remains mere endorsement that the contents of the deeds have been read over. It is not stated that the executants understood the same and finding those to have been correctly written, have signed. P.W.3 is a witness to Ext. 14 and 15. It has been stated by him that defendant no. 3 is an addict of ‘Ganja’ and to have lost mental balance. He states that he had not been asked by the plaintiff no.1. He has stated on oath that on 28.05.1995, he identified the executants of all the deeds i.e. Exts. 14,15 and 7. As already stated that Ext. 7 which is a purported deed of acknowledgement of adoption is not pressed into service and it is not at all explained as to why that such a document was at all conceived for being brought into being. The defendant no. 2 has avoided to stand as a witness. The witness states on oath that the parties had gone to the sub-registrar office for the purpose of documentation as regards adoption of Umakanta, the defendant no. 2 by defendant no.3. Above circumstance rather provides support to the case of the plaintiffs that having come to know that such deed would not serve the purpose of grabbing the property and may face serious criticism and challenges, finally the sale deeds Ext. 14 and 15 were brought into being. The trial Court has discussed the evidence with regard to the possession of the property and has found that there has been no delivery of possession of the land in question pursuant to the sale deeds under Ext. 14 and 15. This Court on carefully examining the evidence on that score, finds no such material to take a different view so as to warrant interference with the same. The subsequent record of rights proved by the defendant no.1 in view of overwhelming evidence on record are of no avail to the case of the defendant no.1. There is also no evidence that the plaintiff no. 1 had any independent advice at that point of time. The D.W.3 has also stated that the plaintiff No. 1 is still residing in that house which is purported to have been sold. All the evidence being viewed cumulatively, I arrive at a finding that the defendant no. There is also no evidence that the plaintiff no. 1 had any independent advice at that point of time. The D.W.3 has also stated that the plaintiff No. 1 is still residing in that house which is purported to have been sold. All the evidence being viewed cumulatively, I arrive at a finding that the defendant no. 1 has failed to discharge of burden of proof of due execution of these two sale deeds under Exts. 14 and 15 by the plaintiff no. 1 as required in law through acceptable evidence by removing the suspicious circumstances. On careful analysis of the evidence relating to execution and the payment of consideration, it is found that the defendant no. 1 has failed to prove all those facts as required in law in a case of the present nature. For the aforesaid discussion and reasons, the findings of the trial Court that Exts. 14 and 15 are void and that under those title in respect of the property covered there under have not passed on the hands of the defendant no. 1 stand affirmed. Consequently, the judgment and decree impugned in this appeal receive due seals of confirmation. 20. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed. In the facts and circumstances, the parties are directed to bear their respective cost throughout. Appeal dismissed.