JOT KUNWAR BAI Vs. VIDYA SAHEB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dtd. 28/9/1992 passed by the 4th Additional District Judge, Durg in Civil Suit No. 5-A/1992, by which, suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff has been dismissed.

(2.) The appellants filed a suit seeking declaration of their title in respect of the suit property on the pleadings inter alia that the property in dispute belonged to Late Jhadu Ram, husband of Smt. Indira Bai and father of other two plaintiffs namely Jot Kunwar Bai and Damin Bai. Jhadu Ram was not keeping well and the property was being looked after by the daughters and son-in-laws. Jhadu Ram died on 22/11/1974. Three years prior to his death and particularly few months before his death, Jhadu Ram had become extremely sick and he was willing to offer to the deity, 50 decimal of his land, which was expressed by him to his Guru-the defendant. When the defendant came for getting the documents executed, he played fraud with Jhadu Ram. He took Jhadu Ram to the office of the Registrar. Documents were prepared by stating that it was related to surrender of small piece of land ad measuring 50 decimal in the services of deity, but without disclosing, a document of sale of all the property in dispute was got prepared by the defendants, which according to the plaintiff, was a fraudulent act. When the plaintiffs came to know from the receipt of notice issued by the Revenue Authorities towards mutation of name of defendants in respect of the properties of Jhadu Ram, it was revealed that fraud has been played. Jhadu Ram thereafter, sent complaints in writing to the various authorities including police that he was defrauded by the defendants by saying that signatures of Jhadu Ram are being taken on the deed of surrender of 50 decimal of land for the deity. Further pleading was that on the basis of the forged document of sale, when the defendants started interfering with the possession and orders passed by the Revenue Authorities directing mutation of name of the defendants, cause of action arose for filing suit.

(3.) The case of the defendants was that he has not played any fraud. Jhadu Ram had sent a letter expressing his willingness to surrender his both movable and immovable property in the feet of deity. The defendant, however, refused to accept the same by stating that if such offer is accepted, he will have to maintain his wife, which he may not be able to do. Thereafter, the defendants proposed Jhadu Ram to sell his property for a valid consideration to the defendant and may utilise the sale proceeds for getting his own treatment as he was not keeping well. According to the defendant, that proposal was accepted by Jhadu Ram. Thereafter, not only Jhadu Ram, but his wife, daughters (plaintiff No.1 and 2) and son-in-law all went to another place to get the sale deed prepared and executed. Initially, the daughters of Jhadu Ram were not agreeable to sale, therefore, the defendant expressed his inability to purchase, unless the daughters gave no objection. Later on, no objection in writing was given by the wife and two daughters of Jhadu Ram and only thereafter, the sale deed was prepared and executed upon payment of total consideration of Rs.15,000.00 paid to him from time to time until date of execution of sale deed. Therefore, no fraud is played.