KAMLA PRASAD Vs. KRISHNA KANT PATHAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the appellant-original defendant Nos. 1 to 6 against an order dated August 10, 2001, passed by the High Court of Judica ture at Allahabad in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 386 of 1990.

(2.) One Kishna Kant Pathak-respondent No. 1 herein, filed a suit against the Appellant and respondent Nos. 2 to 12 in the Court of Civil Judge, Jaunpur being Suit No. 110 of 1984. It was averred in the suit that an agreement to sell dated June 18, 1981 en tered into between the plaintiff and defen dant Nos. 1 to 6, sale deed dated November 7, 1981 executed in their favour and another sale deed, dated December 16, 1981 ex ecuted by the plaintiff in favour of defen dant Nos. 2 and 3 were illegal, without au thority of law and null and void. A prayer was, therefore, made to cancel those documents. It was stated by the plaintiff in the plaint that he and defendant Nos. 10 to 12 were co-bhoomidars of the disputed land and as such defendant Nos. 10 to 12 had also right in the disputed property. The names of defendant Nos. 10 to 12, however, were not entered in the Revenue Record and only the name of plaintiff was recorded. But in view of shares of defendant Nos. 10 to 12, plaintiff alone had no right, title or interest to sell the property.

(3.) It was also alleged in the plaint by the plaintiff that he had developed bad habits and defendant Nos. 1 to 9 took undue ad vantage of the said situation. The plaintiff was under intoxication and the documents got executed by contesting defendants. The plaintiff did not remember the execution of the sale deed and its presentation before the Sub-Registrar, Kerakat. He did not execute the sale deeds with his freewill and on his own accord. Nothing was paid to him. He was given tablets by defendant Nos. 1 to 9 and he became unconscious. At the time of execution of sale deed, the plaintiff was un conscious and was unable to understand judgment of his act. Defendant Nos. 1 to 9 became vendees on the basis of sale deeds but they were liable to be cancelled in view of the circumstances under which the docu ments were executed by the plaintiff.