SUKHDEI Vs. BAIRO DEAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred against the Judgement and decree made by the High court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 7/10/1980 in Second Appeal No. 896 of 1972.

(2.) The original plaintiff (since deceased and now represented by the legal representatives) had filed a suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent regarding House No. 124, Madhwapur, Allahabad, against the original respondents. The case of the plaintiff was that one Smt. Parago was the owner of the house in question and she sold the same on 8th of April, 1958 for a consideration of Rs. 1,500. 00 which sale deed is registered and exhibited in the suit as Ex. 10. It is further contended in the plaint that she also executed a rent note Ex. 3 in favour of plaintiff and she occupied the said house from the date of the sale deed as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 45. 00. On the same day, a document of re-conveyance of the very same house was executed by the plaintiff in favour of Smt. Parago which was to take place within a period of 5 years. The said document was produced as Ex. 7.

(3.) The suit in question came to be filed after the death of Smt. Parago which occurred on 5/2/1964. The original first defendant in the suit was one Sukhdei who claimed to be in possession of the house, being a close relative of Smt. Parago. Defendant No. 2 contested the suit on the ground that he was brought up by Smt. Parago like a child and who had gifted the said house to him and since then he is in occupation as an owner thereof. Defendant No. 3 did not contest the suit. Defendant No. 4 contested the suit on the ground that he was the tenant of Smt. Parago. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 further contended that Smt. Parago was an illiterate woman and was not earthly wise and she having been in need of Rs. 1,500. 00 to renovate her house had borrowed the said sum of money from the plaintiff and as a security for the repayment of the said loan, she had executed a mortgage deed in favour of the plaintiff which was in fact a mortgage deed, but the plaintiff being a lawyer and in a dominant position, had taken undue advantage of the ignorance of Smt. Parago and obtained her signatures on a document which he now claims to be the sale-deed. The said defendants contended that the document in question, apart from being obtained by fraud, is in fact only a mortgage deed.