HUKAM SINGH Vs. BADRI PERSHAD TANDON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff Hukam Singh was the owner and proprietor of a house No. 1298, Rohtash Nagar, Village Saqdarpur, Varinder Block, Illaqa Shahdara, Delhi. He has become owner of this plot of land vide registered sale deed dated 29.10.1953 upon which the aforenoted house had been constructed by him. In October, 1958, plaintiff was in need of money on account of the marriage of his son. He requested Badri Pershad Tandon, defendant No. 1 to advance him a loan. Defendant No. 1 asked the plaintiff to mortgage his house to which the plaintiff agreed. Plaintiff was an illiterate man. On 24.10.1958 a sale deed described as a mortgage deed was executed between the parties. It was registered on 31.10.1958. Plaintiff was under the impression that this was a mortgage which has been executed by him in favour of defendant No. 1. A sum of Rs. 1000/- was advanced by defendant No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff. Possession of the house, however, continued with the plaintiff.

(2.) As per the pleadings in the plaint, defendant No. 1 later on asked the plaintiff to sell half portion of the house to him in order that the mortgage (in fact a sale) could be redeemed. Plaintiff agreed. On 21.12.1967 an unregistered sale deed qua half portion of the said house was executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant No. 1.

(3.) In December 1967, defendant No. 1 suffered a financial crisis. He requested the plaintiff to mortgage the entire house to Sohan Lal, defendant No. 2, for Rs. 7000/- and that the said amount would be shared equally by both the plaintiff and defendant No. 1. Plaintiff agreed to this proposal. On 21.12.1967 a mortgage deed was executed between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2 wherein it was stated that the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 were both co-owners of the house. This document was registered on 29.12.1967. Resultant to this registered mortgage a sum of Rs. 7000/- was advanced by defendant No. 2 to defendant No. 1 and the plaintiff. As per the averments in the plaint, the plaintiff was hoodwinked by defendant No. 1 and he did not receive a single paisa.