Ex.B1/sale deed in the year 1983 thereafter, he was in possession and enjoyment of the property but the plaintiff contended that the sale deed was obtained by undue influence, coercion and fraud, however the same was not proved by the plaintiff but the Court below failed to taken note of this fact also there is no findings with regard to validity of Ex.B1 sale deed stands in the name of the second defendant. On considering the submissions even assuming that the first plaintiff executed sale deed Ex. B1 in favour of the second respondent is valid one but as discussed above neither the plaintiff nor anybody has right or title over Government Poramboku land. Hence, alleged transfer of portion of Poramboku land in B schedule property in favour of the second defendant through Ex.B1 is invalid document and it would not confer right to title over the said property. Though the defendant contend that after said purchase in the year of 1983 he was in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property till date of the suit. But, So far, there is no material evidence on his side to prove continuous possession and enjoyment. But he produced Ex.B6 to B9 Kist receipts which dated after filing of the suit. Moreover, he has not transferred the property in his name or pay kist to the Government. On the other hand, the plaintiffs produced Ex.A2 to A17 kist
