CHANDRABHAN Vs. JAGDESH PRASHAD CHAUHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal, preferred under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is directed against the judgment and order dated 25 -11 -2002, m Civil Appeal No. 26 of 2002, passed by Shri S.C. Dixit, the then learned District Judge, Haridwar, whereby dismissal of original suit No. 426 of 1997 by the trial court, is upheld.

(2.) THE factual matrix of the case are that a suit was filed by plaintiff - appellant for cancellation of agreement of sale dated 07 -08 -1995 and sale deed dated 27 -08 -1996, both executed in favour of the defendant -respondent. It was pleaded in the plaint that plaintiff is the bhumidhar in possession of the land in suit situated in village Salempur, District Haridwar, and consolidation proceedings were on the village. Taking advantage of the simplicity of plaintiff, the defendant cleverly, after making the plaintiff intoxicated, got signed certain papers on 07 -08 -1995 and also took the plaintiff to the office of the Sub Registrar where neither the document was read over to the plaintiff nor any consideration was paid but his signatures were obtained. Again on 27 -081996, a fraud was allegedly played on the plaintiff by getting signed papers in the office of the Sub Registrar, Haridwar. The Defendant on the basis of aforesaid documents got mutated his name in the revenue records through Consolidation authorities. The defendant contested the suit and denied the allegations in the plaint. It was pleaded in the written statement by the defendant that no fraud was committed with the plaintiff nor he was intoxicated. Rather, he was paid amount of Rs. 1,50,000/ - per bigha for transfer of the land to the defendant. It is also pleaded by the defendant that instruments in question dated 07 -08 -1995 and 27 -08 -1996 were executed by the plaintiff at his own will.

(3.) LEARNED trial court framed three issues including the one relating to the fact if the documents in question were liable to be cancelled. Learned trial court while deciding the issue No.2 relating to the question if the documents re liable to be cancelled, discussing the fact observed that the plaintiff Chandrabhan has admitted that the documents were executed by him and found that the suit is liable to be dismissed, and dismissed it accordingly on 24 -03 -2001. Aggrieved by said judgment and decree, civil appeal was preferred before the learned District Judge, Haridwar by the plaintiff and same also, after hearing the parties was dismissed by the learned lower appellate court on 25 -11 -2002, hence this second appeal.