The respondents, the original plaintiffs, initiated a lawsuit in 1985 seeking a perpetual injunction against the appellant and a co-defendant, asserting their claim to the land in question. They contended that the land was ancestral property and that the appellant had no legitimate rights over it. The plaintiffs further alleged that the appellant had obtained a document from one of the co-plaintiffs under questionable circumstances, exploiting his mental condition.

In response, the appellant denied the allegations and argued that he had purchased a specific parcel of land through an agreement dated December 29, 1973. He claimed to be in possession of the land based on this agreement.

The trial court, after reviewing the evidence, concluded that the document in question was a valid sale deed, indicating that the land was indeed sold, rather than merely being under an agreement for sale. This decision was met with dissatisfaction from the plaintiffs, who appealed to the District Judge. In December 1998, the appellate court overturned the trial court’s ruling, prompting the appellant to seek recourse through a second appeal.

At the heart of the second appeal was the determination of whether the document (referred to as Exhibit 43) constituted a sale deed or an agreement for sale. The appellant's counsel argued convincingly that the language and recitals of Exhibit 43 clearly indicated it was a final sale deed, reflecting an outright sale of the property.

The recitals in the document described the transaction as complete, with the full consideration of ?40 being received by the seller, thus confirming the appellant’s possession of the land. The court noted that the evidence presented showed the appellant had been in continuous cultivation of the property.

The respondents’ counsel contended that the document lacked legal necessity and could not transfer rights, but the court found this argument unpersuasive. The language of Exhibit 43 was deemed clear and unambiguous, and no substantial evidence was presented to support claims of undue influence or mental incapacity at the time of signing.

The court also noted the absence of any fraud allegations in the pleadings or evidence, further reinforcing the validity of the sale deed. Importantly, the respondents did not provide testimony to counter the appellant’s claims, weakening their position significantly.

Ultimately, the court concluded that Exhibit 43 is indeed a sale deed, reaffirming the findings of the trial court. The ruling restored the initial judgment that had dismissed the plaintiffs’ suit, emphasizing that even a co-parcener has the right to alienate their share of the property.

In a final order, the appeal was allowed, the previous judgment of the appellate court was quashed, and the original dismissal of the suit was reinstated. The court’s decision underscores the importance of clarity in property transactions and the rights of individuals regarding their ownership and possession of land.

This case serves as a reminder of the critical nature of legal documentation in property disputes, ensuring that rights are respected and upheld within the framework of law.