KANAK LATA DEB SARKAR Vs. SANYASHI CHARAN PARAMANIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are the defendants in a suit for declaration and injunction. The suit was decreed by the trial court, but that decree was reversed by the first appellate court. On appeal by the plaintiff, the Highcourt reversed the finding of the first appellate court and decreed the suit. Counsel for the appellants submits that the High court had not expressed its view on many aspects which had been discussed in great detail in the judgment of the first appellate court.

(2.) The plaintiff sought a declaration that the three documents of sale by which properties had been sold by him to the defendants were null and void by reason of fraud and failure to give the agreed consideration. The trial court held that the defendants had failed to prove that they had the means to pay the agreed consideration as mentioned in the documents. The first appellate court, reversing the decree of the trial court, held that the plaintiff had failed to discharge the burden of proving that the statements in the documents of sale, and the agreements for sale preceding them, to the effect that the consideration had been received in full was wrongly stated and a fraud had been committed upon him by inducing him to sign the documents, the contents of which he was unaware. The first appellate court also held that the suit was barred by limitation.

(3.) Five agreements for sale preceded the three documents of sale. There is reference in them to receipt of consideration. Two of the agreements were allegedly written in the handwriting of the plaintiff. If all the five agreements to sell are read together, the consideration is shown to have been received in full by the plaintiff before the three documents of sale were executed on November 1, 19 4/03/1949 and 23/06/1950 respectively. These documents of sale acknowledge receipt of full consideration. They were duly registered. Witnesses had testified to this fact. The suit was filed on 30/5/1956.