transaction in the capacity as the President of the building committee and when there are clear recitals found in Ex.B1 that consideration had been passed on to Appavu Padayachi by the building committee for the sale transaction and resultantly, Appavu Padayachi had also handed over the possession of the suit property to the committee, P.W.2 now cannot turn around and depose diametrically opposite to the recitals found in Ex.B1 and as rightly pointed out the abovesaid evidence of P.W.2 cannot be accepted and relied upon lawfully as they are found to be not in consonance with the provisions of sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act. In the light of the above discussions, when there is no material worth acceptance placed by the plaintiffs to evidence that Appavu Padayachi had been deceived and thereby the document Ex.B1 had come to be obtained as projected in the plaint and on the the hand, when the materials point out that the sale transaction marked as Ex.B1 has come into the existence in the normal course of events as above discussed i.e., the said conveyance having been made by Appavu Padayachi as the manager of the temples of the suit village and the purchaser being the president of the building committee, in such view of the matter, it is found that, as rightly put forth by the defendants' counsel, Ex.B1 sale transaction has been not shown to be suffering from any vices as such and it is therefore found that as rightly determined by the trial court, Ex.B1 sale transaction is a true and valid sale transaction and binding one and all including the plaintiffs. In such view of the matter, the plaintiffs cannot now to be allowed to contend that Ex.B1 had come to be obtained illegally from Appavu Padayachi as projected in the plaint, when there is no material pointing to the same. 13.Following Ex.B1 sale transaction, it is found that the suit property had come to be acquired by the building committee and accordingly by way of the settlement deed dated 26.02.1968, the said committee had settled the suit property in favour of the Chief Educational Officer, Trichy, for the purpose of running the school and the copy of the abovesaid settlement deed has come to be marked as Ex.B2. On a perusal of Ex.B2, it is found that there are clear recitals that the suit property had been acquired from Appavu Padayachi by way of the sale transaction dated 02.06.1966 and thereupon the same had come to be settled in favour of the Chief Educational Officer, Trichy, for the above purpose of running the school and when materials had been placed by the defendants to evidence the execution of the settlement deed and the same had also been spoken to by P.W.2, the executor in his capacity as the President of the building committee, it is found that, by virtue of Ex.B2 settlement deed, it is only the Education Department of the Government of Tamilnadu, who would be the title holder of the suit property and in such view of the matter, it is found that the plaintiffs cannot be allowed to still raise a claim of title
