Basant Rai Vs. Sanmatia Devi and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
the respondent, a veterinary surgeon, was in the service of the state government of uttar pradesh. 6. the respondent challenged his termination from service by filing a writ petition (civil miscellaneous writ petition no.47118 of 2003) before the allahabad high court. in view of the omissions on the part of the state government, the high court concluded that the punishment awarded to the respondent was excessive and, consequently, quashed the impugned order of his termination of service dated august 16, 2003. having come to the finding that the charges against the respondent were duly established, the high court ought to have simply dismissed the writ petition. judgement:1. this first appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the impugned sahoo, j. judgment and decree dated 22.12.1986 passed by learned sub judge ist, buxar in title suit no.220 of 1976 dismissing the plaintiff-appellant's suit.2. the plaintiff-appellant filed the aforesaid suit praying for declaration that the registered sale deeds dated 04.02.1966, 22.07.1963, 01.07.1955 and 13.11.1958 with respect to the suit land are fraudulent, void and sham transactions and not binding on the plaintiff. the plaintiff also prayed for declaration that the rehan deeds dated 22.12.1953 and 11.11.1958, the hand notes dated 01.06.1962, 29.07.1962 and 30.06.1965 in respect of the suit land were executed without legal necessity and were fictitious and fabricated documents. the plaintiff also prayed for his possession over the suit land or in the alternative for recovery of possession.3. the plaintiff prayed for the aforesaid reliefs on the facts inter alia that the grand father of the plaintiff died 36 years ago in the state of separation and on his death, the plaintiff's father, jhalku rai inherited 16 bigghas of ancestral fertile, productive and valuable lands along with the plaintiff and plaintiff's mother. the plaintiff was minor. at that time, the lands were capable of fetching prices @ rs.10,000/- per biggha. the plaintiff's father sold 8 bigghas of land through the above sale deeds because of immoral habits with concubine. the defendants intoxicated him and brought him under their influence and procured the sale deeds, rehan deeds and hand notes. the plaintiff father never took loan under any rehan deed or bond from the defendants and it was never for legal necessity or for the benefit of the estate or for the family of the plaintiff. the loan or the sale consideration were spent by the plaintiff's father for immoral acts. the plaintiff's father had no right to sacrifice the interests of the son and, therefore, all the transactions are illegal, void, sham, fabricated, without consideration and not binding on the plaintiff.4. on being noticed, the 4 sets of defendants filed separate contesting written statement. it appears that subsequently the plaintiff withdrew the claim against the defendant no.1 and, therefore, only 3 sets of the defendant contested the suit. the defendant no.2 and 3 filed one written statement, the defendant no.4 filed one written statement and the defendant no.5 to 7 filed one separate written statement. all the defence of these defendants are almost in the same line. besides taking various legal please, mainly it was contended that the suit is barred by law of limitation. the suit lands were not fertile and productive land and were not capable of fetching of rs.10,000/- per biggha at the time of transaction. the plaintiff's father was not of immoral habit or character and he never sold under undue influence or intoxicated condition or for immoral habit. according to them, the transaction was for legal necessity and for benefit of the family and for consideration. the sale deeds are genuine, valid, for legal necessity and for consideration.5. on the basis of the above pleadings, the learned court below framed following issues :(i) is the suit as framed maintainable?(ii) is the suit barred by law of limitation?(iii) has the plaintiff got valid cause of action for the suit? (iv) is the suit barred under section 34 of the specific relief act? (v) are the sale deeds mentioned in schedule 1 of the plaint, are fraudulent, valid and sham transactions? and are thetransanctions made by plaintiff's father tainted with illegality, without consideration and are the same imprudent acts of the father of the plaintiff?(vi) is the plaintiff in possession over the suit land? (vii) is the suit properly valued and the court fee paid is sufficient? (viii) is the plaintiff entitled to decree as claimed? (ix) to what reliefs if any, the plaintiff is entitled?6. after trial, the learned court below while deciding issue no.2, came to the conclusion that the suit is barred by article 60 of the limitation act. while deciding issue no.5, the learned court below found that the sale deeds are genuine, valid and the same were executed by the plaintiff's father prudently and for consideration and for legal necessity and for the benefit of the entire family.7. the learned senior counsel, mr. kamal nayan chaubey, appearing on behalf of the appellant assailed the impugned judgment on two accounts firstly, the learned senior counsel submitted that the learned court below has wrongly held that the suit is barred under article 60 of the limitation act because in the present case, article 60 of the limitation act is not applicable rather article 109 is applicable. therefore, if article 109 read with section 6 of the limitation act is applied then the suit is not barred by limitation and in fact in this case article 109 is applicable. secondly, the learned counsel submitted that the sale deeds are not supported by adequate consideration. the leaned counsel further submitted that while disposing of the coparcenary property, the manager should act as prudent man and not to sacrifice the property for an inadequate consideration. in the present case according to the learned counsel, it is shocking to the conscience that for meager consideration amount, 8 bigghas of joint family property has been transferred by the father of the plaintiff and it seems that in fact the father had sacrificed the property and, therefore on that ground, alone also the impugned sale deeds are liable to be set aside. in this case at the time of hearing of the appeal, nobody appears on behalf of the respondent in spite of service of notice.8. in view of the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, the points arises for consideration in this appeal are as follows : i. whether the article 60 or article 109 of the limitation act is applicable and whether the plaintiff suit is barred by law of limitation?ii. whether the sale deeds are genuine, valid and for consideration and for legal necessity and for the benefit of the family or whether the plaintiff father transfered the land for inadequate consideration and whether the impugnedjudgment and decree are unsustainable in the eye of law?9. point no. (i) the plaintiff-appellant has challenged sale deeds dated 04.02.1966, 22.07.1963, 01.07.1955 and 13.11.1958. according to the learned court below, the suit is barred by limitation under article 60 of the limitation act. article 60 of the limitation act deals with the transfer of property made by the guardian of a ward. in the present case, the property of the ward has not been transferred. according to the plaintiff himself the property belonged to the grand father who died 30 years ago and on his death, the plaintiff's father along with his wife and the plaintiff inherited the suit property measuring about 16 bigghas. his father transferred 8 bigghas of lands. therefore, here, the transfer has been made by the plaintiff's father and the plaintiff is filing the suit to set aside his father's alienation of ancestral property. therefore, article 109 of the limitation act will apply and not article 60 of the limitation act. therefore, cause of action for the suit arose on the date of sale deed as it is well settled principals of law 'possession follows title'. now, let us consideration in view of article 109 of the limitation act whether the plaintiff suit is barred by law of limitation.10. as stated above, the sale deeds which have been challenged are of the years 1955-1966. the plaintiff was required to file the suit within 12 years after attaining his majority. the plaintiff as well as the defendants have adduced evidence regarding the age of the plaintiff. p.w.7, the plaintiff himself at paragraph 12 of his deposition has clearly admitted that he had filed affidavit in money suit no.16 of 1970 in the court of munsif, buxar. ext.'e-1' is the said affidavit and ext.'g-1' is the voter list of the year 1975. from perusal of the affidavit dated 19.11.1970, i.e., ext.1, it appears that on that date the age of the plaintiff was 22 years and according to the voter list which is of the year 1975, the age of the plaintiff was 27 years and, therefore, both these documents supports each other. no doubt, the parties have adduced oral evidence in this case regarding the age of the plaintiff but in view of the documentary evidences, it cannot be relied upon. p.w.4 to p.w.6, all have deposed about the age of the plaintiff approximately. none of them have given the exact month or year of birth of the plaintiff. p.w.7, the plaintiff himself has stated that he was born in the year 1956. this statement of this witness is not reliable in view of the documentary evidence ext. e-1 and g-1. on calculation, therefore, the year of birth of the plaintiff comes to 1948. he will become major in the year 1966. now, applying the article 109 of the limitation act, he could have filed the suit within 1978 and the suit has been filed in 1976 and, therefore, in my opinion, the suit is not barred by law of limitation. the finding of the learned court below on this point is, therefore, reversed and it is held that the plaintiff suit is not barred by law of limitation.11. point no.(ii) according to the plaintiff's case, the transfer were made illegally and imprudent manner for inadequate consideration, and, therefore, the sale deeds are void transaction, the sale deeds have been marked as ext. 'a' series. one sale deed is dated 04.02.1966 for rs.2869/-. the other sale deed is dated 22.07.1963 for rs.5,000/- and the other sale deed is dated 01.07.1955 for rs.2,000/- and the 4th sale deed is dated 13.11.1958 for rs.860/-. it appears that the consideration amount in these sale deeds have been adjusted with rehan money. the rehan deed have been marked as ext. 'b' series. in ext. 'a-1', the hand note dues of rs.2125/- dated 30.06.1965 was adjusted and cash consideration of rs.744/- was paid and likewise in ext. 'a-2' rehan money of rs.1,248/- under rehan deed dated 30.08.1954 was adjusted and balance cash consideration was paid. the other rehan deeds which are of dated 22.12.1953 for rs.16,00/- was also adjusted. ext. 'c-2' is usufructory mortgage dated 30.08.1954 for rs.1348/- and ext. 'c1' is usufructory mortgage dated 29.09.1955 for rs.975/- have also been adjusted in the sale deed dated 22.07.1965. the other hand notes have been produced by the defendants such as hand note dated 01.06.1962 for rs.14,00/- dated 29.07.1962 for rs.1427.50/- which were adjusted in the sale deeds. in the sale deeds itself, the necessity for which the lands were given in mortgage and the reason for selling the same has been mentioned. admittedly, according to the plaintiff himself, 16 bigghas land was inherited and, therefore, the father of the plaintiff had got half share. according to the plaintiff himself also his father sold 8 bigghas of land. although, originally, the sale deed of defendant no.1 was also challenged by the plaintiff but subsequently, he admitted the fact that it was executed validly in favour of defendant no.1, and, therefore, he withdrew the claim. no doubt, it is pleaded by the plaintiff that the father of the plaintiff sold the lands for immoral purposes but there is no reliable evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiff. as stated above, recital in the sale deeds have been made by the father of the plaintiff who is now dead and, therefore, the statements are admissible under section 32 of the indian evidence act. the plaintiff was required to adduce cogent and reliable evidence questioning character of father after his death. nothing has been produced before the court.12. so far inadequacy of the consideration amount is concerned, p.w.9 has stated that during rainy season, the said land is covered by flood and p.w.11 has also admitted the same. therefore, the learned court below has rightly found that the suit lands are flood affected land. d.w.15 to 17 and 20 also stated that because of rain, the suit land remained parti. from perusal of the evidences of these witnesses, it appears that the suit land is cultivated only when it rains. therefore, the suit land is not irrigated and, therefore, not fertile land.13. the learned counsel for the appellant relied upon a decision of the hon'ble apex court in a.i.r. 1952, 84 (prasad and ors. v. gobind suber) mudalayar and submitted that the father must act like a prudent man and should not sacrifice property for inadequate consideration. in the present case, 8 bigghas land has been sold for nominal consideration. from perusal of the aforesaid decision of the hon'ble apex court, it appears that in that case, 48.70 acres of land partly dried and partly wet and one house in godiyatam town which was the whole property of the joint family was sold for rs.14,000/- only in 1955. therefore, the hon'ble supreme court after consideration of the evidences came to the conclusion that the consideration in the sale deed is thoroughly inadequate and that the sale deeds was executed only nominally for a collateral purpose with the understanding that the properties sold are to be re-conveyed to the vendors. as stated above from perusal of the said decision in that case, there was pressure by the creditors for immediate discharge of the debts. the vendors started a new lungi business and in that he borrowed money. however, he suffered loss in that business and, therefore, to save the property from the creditors, he entered into the transaction in question in that case. here, this is not the case. here, the father has 8 bigghas share and he transferred the same through sale deeds in which the loan which he had borrowed earlier had been adjusted. now, after such a long period, at this stage, the exact valuation of the land transfer cannot be calculated. moreover, the witnesses have stated that the lands are not fertile land, not irrigated land and it was flood affected. therefore, the land was not valuable. in view of the above discussions of the evidences in the present facts and circumstances of the case, considering the nature of the land, it cannot be said that the consideration for which the lands have been transferred are inadequate, moreover the consideration must be shocking to the conscience of a prudent man so as to come to the conclusion that the property has been sacrificed for the nominal considerations. the learned counsel tried his best to pursue that there was enough land measuring 16 bigghas and, therefore, there was no legal necessity for transferring the land. as stated above, so far this submission is concerned, the lands were flood affected lands and the witnesses have stated that it is cultivated only if it rains. there is no reliable evidence that the lands are fertile lands and valuable lands. in such circumstances relying upon the statement of the plaintiff only, no presumption can be made that the lands were productive and there was much more earning in the family. in view of my above discussion, according to me the decision relied upon by the appellant will not apply in the present case. the facts of that case is different than the present facts and circumstances.14. in view of my above discussion, i find that the plaintiff have failed to prove that the father of the plaintiff sold the property for immoral purposes and the transfer are for without legal necessity. the plaintiff has also failed to prove that the lands are fertile lands and that it was sold by his father for nominal consideration and in fact his father sacrificed the land. the plaintiff also failed to prove that his father sold more than his share. therefore, the finding of the learned court below on this point is confirmed. accordingly, the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief for cancellation of the sale deeds.15. in the result, i find no merit in this appeal and accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. in the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own cost.

Judgment:
Judgement:

1. This First Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the impugned Sahoo, J. Judgment and Decree dated 22.12.1986 passed by learned Sub Judge Ist, Buxar in Title Suit No.220 of 1976 dismissing the plaintiff-appellant's suit.

2. The plaintiff-appellant filed the aforesaid suit praying for declaration that the registered sale deeds dated 04.02.1966, 22.07.1963, 01.07.1955 and 13.11.1958 with respect to the suit land are fraudulent, void and sham transactions and not binding on the plaintiff. The plaintiff also prayed for declaration that the rehan deeds dated 22.12.1953 and 11.11.1958, the hand notes dated 01.06.1962, 29.07.1962 and 30.06.1965 in respect of the suit land were executed without legal necessity and were fictitious and fabricated documents. The plaintiff also prayed for his possession over the suit land or in the alternative for recovery of possession.

3. The plaintiff prayed for the aforesaid reliefs on the facts inter alia that the grand father of the plaintiff died 36 years ago in the state of separation and on his death, the plaintiff's father, Jhalku Rai inherited 16 bigghas of ancestral fertile, productive and valuable lands along with the plaintiff and plaintiff's mother. The plaintiff was minor. At that time, the lands were capable of fetching prices @ Rs.10,000/- per biggha. The plaintiff's father sold 8 bigghas of land through the above sale deeds because of immoral habits with concubine. The defendants intoxicated him and brought him under their influence and procured the sale deeds, rehan deeds and hand notes. The plaintiff father never took loan under any rehan deed or bond from the defendants and it was never for legal necessity or for the benefit of the estate or for the family of the plaintiff. The loan or the sale consideration were spent by the plaintiff's father for immoral acts. The plaintiff's father had no right to sacrifice the interests of the son and, therefore, all the transactions are illegal, void, sham, fabricated, without consideration and not binding on the plaintiff.

4. On being noticed, the 4 sets of defendants filed separate contesting written statement. It appears that subsequently the plaintiff withdrew the claim against the defendant No.1 and, therefore, only 3 sets of the defendant contested the suit. The defendant No.2 and 3 filed one written statement, the defendant No.4 filed one written statement and the defendant No.5 to 7 filed one separate written statement. All the defence of these defendants are almost in the same line. Besides taking various legal please, mainly it was contended that the suit is barred by law of limitation. The suit lands were not fertile and productive land and were not capable of fetching of Rs.10,000/- per biggha at the time of transaction. The plaintiff's father was not of immoral habit or character and he never sold under undue influence or intoxicated condition or for immoral habit. According to them, the transaction was for legal necessity and for benefit of the family and for consideration. The sale deeds are genuine, valid, for legal necessity and for consideration.

5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the learned Court below framed following issues :

(i) Is the suit as framed maintainable?

(ii) Is the suit barred by law of limitation?

(iii) Has the plaintiff got valid cause of action for the suit?

(iv) Is the suit barred under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act?

(v) Are the sale deeds mentioned in Schedule 1 of the plaint, are fraudulent, valid and sham transactions? And are thetransanctions made by plaintiff's father tainted with illegality, without consideration and are the same imprudent acts of the father of the plaintiff?

(vi) Is the plaintiff in possession over the suit land?

(vii) Is the suit properly valued and the Court fee paid is sufficient?

(viii) Is the plaintiff entitled to decree as claimed?

(ix) To what reliefs if any, the plaintiff is entitled?

6. After trial, the learned Court below while deciding Issue No.2, came to the conclusion that the suit is barred by Article 60 of the Limitation Act. While deciding Issue No.5, the learned Court below found that the sale deeds are genuine, valid and the same were executed by the plaintiff's father prudently and for consideration and for legal necessity and for the benefit of the entire family.

7. The learned senior counsel, Mr. Kamal Nayan Chaubey, appearing on behalf of the appellant assailed the impugned Judgment on two accounts firstly, the learned senior counsel submitted that the learned Court below has wrongly held that the suit is barred under Article 60 of the Limitation Act because in the present case, Article 60 of the Limitation Act is not applicable rather Article 109 is applicable. Therefore, if article 109 read with Section 6 of the Limitation Act is applied then the suit is not barred by limitation and in fact in this case Article 109 is applicable. Secondly, the learned counsel submitted that the sale deeds are not supported by adequate consideration. The leaned counsel further submitted that while disposing of the coparcenary property, the Manager should act as prudent man and not to sacrifice the property for an inadequate consideration. In the present case according to the learned counsel, it is shocking to the conscience that for meager consideration amount, 8 bigghas of joint family property has been transferred by the father of the plaintiff and it seems that in fact the father had sacrificed the property and, therefore on that ground, alone also the impugned sale deeds are liable to be set aside. In this case at the time of hearing of the appeal, nobody appears on behalf of the respondent in spite of service of notice.

8. In view of the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, the points arises for consideration in this appeal are as follows : I. Whether the article 60 or article 109 of the Limitation Act is applicable and whether the plaintiff suit is barred by law of limitation?

II. Whether the sale deeds are genuine, valid and for consideration and for legal necessity and for the benefit of the family or whether the plaintiff father transfered the land for inadequate consideration and whether the impugned

Judgment and Decree are unsustainable in the eye of law?

9. Point No. (i) The plaintiff-appellant has challenged sale deeds dated 04.02.1966, 22.07.1963, 01.07.1955 and 13.11.1958. According to the learned Court below, the suit is barred by limitation under article 60 of the Limitation Act. Article 60 of the Limitation Act deals with the transfer of property made by the guardian of a ward. In the present case, the property of the ward has not been transferred. According to the plaintiff himself the property belonged to the grand father who died 30 years ago and on his death, the plaintiff's father along with his wife and the plaintiff inherited the suit property measuring about 16 bigghas. His father transferred 8 bigghas of lands. Therefore, here, the transfer has been made by the plaintiff's father and the plaintiff is filing the suit to set aside his father's alienation of ancestral property. Therefore, article 109 of the Limitation Act will apply and not article 60 of the Limitation Act. Therefore, cause of action for the suit arose on the date of sale deed as it is well settled principals of law 'possession follows title'. Now, let us consideration in view of article 109 of the Limitation Act whether the plaintiff suit is barred by law of limitation.

10. As stated above, the sale deeds which have been challenged are of the years 1955-1966. The plaintiff was required to file the suit within 12 years after attaining his majority. The plaintiff as well as the defendants have adduced evidence regarding the age of the plaintiff. P.W.7, the plaintiff himself at paragraph 12 of his deposition has clearly admitted that he had filed affidavit in money suit No.16 of 1970 in the Court of Munsif, Buxar. Ext.'E-1' is the said affidavit and Ext.'G-1' is the voter list of the year 1975. From perusal of the affidavit dated 19.11.1970, i.e., Ext.1, it appears that on that date the age of the plaintiff was 22 years and according to the voter list which is of the year 1975, the age of the plaintiff was 27 years and, therefore, both these documents supports each other. No doubt, the parties have adduced oral evidence in this case regarding the age of the plaintiff but in view of the documentary evidences, it cannot be relied upon. P.W.4 to P.W.6, all have deposed about the age of the plaintiff approximately. None of them have given the exact month or year of birth of the plaintiff. P.W.7, the plaintiff himself has stated that he was born in the year 1956. This statement of this witness is not reliable in view of the documentary evidence Ext. E-1 and G-1. On calculation, therefore, the year of birth of the plaintiff comes to 1948. He will become major in the year 1966. Now, applying the article 109 of the Limitation Act, he could have filed the suit within 1978 and the suit has been filed in 1976 and, therefore, in my opinion, the suit is not barred by law of limitation. The finding of the learned Court below on this point is, therefore, reversed and it is held that the plaintiff suit is not barred by law of limitation.

11. Point No.(II) According to the plaintiff's case, the transfer were made illegally and imprudent manner for inadequate consideration, and, therefore, the sale deeds are void transaction, the sale deeds have been marked as Ext. 'A' series. One sale deed is dated 04.02.1966 for Rs.2869/-. The other sale deed is dated 22.07.1963 for Rs.5,000/- and the other sale deed is dated 01.07.1955 for Rs.2,000/- and the 4th sale deed is dated 13.11.1958 for Rs.860/-. It appears that the consideration amount in these sale deeds have been adjusted with rehan money. The rehan deed have been marked as Ext. 'B' series. In Ext. 'A-1', the hand note dues of Rs.2125/- dated 30.06.1965 was adjusted and cash consideration of RS.744/- was paid and likewise in Ext. 'A-2' rehan money of Rs.1,248/- under rehan deed dated 30.08.1954 was adjusted and balance cash consideration was paid. The other rehan deeds which are of dated 22.12.1953 for Rs.16,00/- was also adjusted. Ext. 'C-2' is usufructory mortgage dated 30.08.1954 for Rs.1348/- and Ext. 'C1' is usufructory mortgage dated 29.09.1955 for RS.975/- have also been adjusted in the sale deed dated 22.07.1965. The other hand notes have been produced by the defendants such as hand note dated 01.06.1962 for Rs.14,00/- dated 29.07.1962 for Rs.1427.50/- which were adjusted in the sale deeds. In the sale deeds itself, the necessity for which the lands were given in mortgage and the reason for selling the same has been mentioned. Admittedly, according to the plaintiff himself, 16 bigghas land was inherited and, therefore, the father of the plaintiff had got half share. According to the plaintiff himself also his father sold 8 bigghas of land. Although, originally, the sale deed of defendant No.1 was also challenged by the plaintiff but subsequently, he admitted the fact that it was executed validly in favour of defendant No.1, and, therefore, he withdrew the claim. No doubt, it is pleaded by the plaintiff that the father of the plaintiff sold the lands for immoral purposes but there is no reliable evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiff. As stated above, recital in the sale deeds have been made by the father of the plaintiff who is now dead and, therefore, the statements are admissible under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act. The plaintiff was required to adduce cogent and reliable evidence questioning character of father after his death. Nothing has been produced before the Court.

12. So far inadequacy of the consideration amount is concerned, P.W.9 has stated that during rainy season, the said land is covered by flood and P.W.11 has also admitted the same. Therefore, the learned Court below has rightly found that the suit lands are flood affected land. D.W.15 to 17 and 20 also stated that because of rain, the suit land remained parti. From perusal of the evidences of these witnesses, it appears that the suit land is cultivated only when it rains. Therefore, the suit land is not irrigated and, therefore, not fertile land.

13. The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in A.I.R. 1952, 84 (Prasad and Ors. v. Gobind Suber) Mudalayar and submitted that the father must act like a prudent man and should not sacrifice property for inadequate consideration. In the present case, 8 bigghas land has been sold for nominal consideration. From perusal of the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it appears that in that case, 48.70 acres of land partly dried and partly wet and one house in Godiyatam Town which was the whole property of the joint family was sold for Rs.14,000/- only in 1955. Therefore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court after consideration of the evidences came to the conclusion that the consideration in the sale deed is thoroughly inadequate and that the sale deeds was executed only nominally for a collateral purpose with the understanding that the properties sold are to be re-conveyed to the vendors. As stated above from perusal of the said decision in that case, there was pressure by the creditors for immediate discharge of the debts. The vendors started a new Lungi business and in that he borrowed money. However, he suffered loss in that business and, therefore, to save the property from the creditors, he entered into the transaction in question in that case. Here, this is not the case. Here, the father has 8 bigghas share and he transferred the same through sale deeds in which the loan which he had borrowed earlier had been adjusted. Now, after such a long period, at this stage, the exact valuation of the land transfer cannot be calculated. Moreover, the witnesses have stated that the lands are not fertile land, not irrigated land and it was flood affected. Therefore, the land was not valuable. In view of the above discussions of the evidences in the present facts and circumstances of the case, considering the nature of the land, it cannot be said that the consideration for which the lands have been transferred are inadequate, moreover the consideration must be shocking to the conscience of a prudent man so as to come to the conclusion that the property has been sacrificed for the nominal considerations. The learned counsel tried his best to pursue that there was enough land measuring 16 bigghas and, therefore, there was no legal necessity for transferring the land. As stated above, so far this submission is concerned, the lands were flood affected lands and the witnesses have stated that it is cultivated only if it rains. There is no reliable evidence that the lands are fertile lands and valuable lands. In such circumstances relying upon the statement of the plaintiff only, no presumption can be made that the lands were productive and there was much more earning in the family. In view of my above discussion, according to me the decision relied upon by the appellant will not apply in the present case. The facts of that case is different than the present facts and circumstances.

14. In view of my above discussion, I find that the plaintiff have failed to prove that the father of the plaintiff sold the property for immoral purposes and the transfer are for without legal necessity. The plaintiff has also failed to prove that the lands are fertile lands and that it was sold by his father for nominal consideration and in fact his father sacrificed the land. The plaintiff also failed to prove that his father sold more than his share. Therefore, the finding of the learned Court below on this point is confirmed. Accordingly, the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief for cancellation of the sale deeds.

15. In the result, I find no merit in this appeal and accordingly, this Appeal is dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own cost.