KENCHAWWA Vs. AMAGONDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiffs' appeal against the Judgement and Decree of the trial Court in O.S. No. 20 of 1975 dismissing the suit filed against defendants 1 and 2 for a declaration that the sale deed dated 4 10-1969 executed by her and defendant-2 in respect of the suit land in favour of defendant-1 is null and void and not binding on her and for other consequential reliefs.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff shortly put before the trial Court is that the suit schedule land was''Sthridhana land and she, having inheritely her parents, was the exclusive owner of the said land. This is also evidenced by mutation entry Nos. 1, 2 and 7 of Hanchinal village. This land was mortgaged with possession under a registered mortgage deed dated 11-4-1966 to one Bagawan for a sum of Rs. 600/- and that mortgage was redeemed under a redemption deed dated 2-5-1968 and thus she obtained possession of the suit land. After taking possession, she was in enjoyment of the suit land till about the year 1972, when defendant-1 brought police force to the suit land and began threatening her saying that she should vacate the hut that she had put up for residential purposes. Then only she came to know that her hnsband had sold the suit land to defendant-1 under a document styled as "sale deed" dated 4-10-1969, i.e. Ex.D-1. Thereafter, she made the necessary enquiries in the concerned Office, and came to know that defendant-1 had managed to get the sale deed executed by defendant-2 in his favour and he also managed to get her signature (L T.M.) by misrepresentation and fraud without letting her know the real nature of transaction. According to her, defendent-2 that is her husband had taken her signature on the said document misrepresentating to her that he had taken a loan of Rs. 3,000/- from defendant-1 and therefore defendant 1 wanted her signature as a surety for the said loan of Rs. 3,000/-.

(3.) The plaintiff has further averred that when the alleged saletransaction need took place on 4-10-1969, she was not in of any money for her family necessities since her two daughters had already been married about 10 to 20 years earlier and her two other children who were living under her custody were still minors and she executed the suit document along- with her husband on the mis-representation made by him stating that she was executing the same as a surety for certain amounts taken by her husband from defendant-1, that the suit schedule property measuring 14 acres and odd was worth more than Rs. 25,000/- and she had refused to sell the same to one Pandit Saraf when she was approached by that person for parting with that property ; that Defendant-2 never told her that he was selling the property to defendant-1 and she was also not aware of the fact that defendant-2 had got her name entered in the Kabjedar column and such entry was made by defendant-2 by practicing fraud on her at the time of redemption of the suit property under the earlier mortgage deed in favour of Pandit Saraf; that defendants 1 and 2 had taken advantage of her ignorance and illiteracy and the implicit faith she had in defendant-2 and therefore the sale deed is void and unenforceable as against the plaintiff and she is not bound by it. It was further pleaded in the plaint that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land as owner till an order of injunction in 0 S. No 251/1973 was served on her and at that time only she came to know that defendants had managed to get her signature to the sale deed in question. Therefore on these grounds, the plaintiff prayed for declaration that the sale deed dated 4-10-1969 in favour of defendant-1 was null and void and ineffectual as against her and not binding on her and therefore as a consequential relief she was entitled to an order of permanent injunction against defendant-1 restraining him from interfering whether exclusive possession and wahivat of the suit land. Alternatively she claimed that in case the trial Court for some reason came to the conclusion that she is not in possession of the suit land, she may be granted possession of the suit land from defendant-1 with mesne profits from date of suit till delivery of possession.