KUSUM DEVI Vs. ANIL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the above -titled appeals have arisen out of same judgment, hence are being taken up for admission together.

(2.) HAVING heard the learned counsel of either party, it transpires that the dispute amongst them, viz. plaintiffs and defendants, pertains to the genuineness of two identical registered agreements to sale dated 14.11.1990 executed by Smt. Surji (widow) in favour of plaintiffs, who are none other but the real brothers/ nephews of her husband Telu Ram. Smt. Surjee is said to be a scheduled caste infirm, old, illiterate and rural background lady, who was persuaded by her son -in -law Narendra Kumar to arrange some money for solemnization of marriage of his sister. So, she executed these two agreements. She never intended to sell her land in question but the deed was bestowed in the colour of an agreement to sale, while, in fact, it was a deed of security for loan of Rs.17,500/ - against the demand of Rs.20,000/ -. A sum of Rs.15,000/ - was paid at the time of execution of these agreements while the sale deed had to be executed within two years by 13.11.1992 after payment of remaining consideration of Rs.2,500/ -. When the sale deed was not so executed as per terms, notice was issued on 17.12.1992 asking Smt. Surji to execute the sale deed. In non -compliance of such notice, two separate identical suits were filed on 20.7.1994.

(3.) AFTER lapse of a considerable time, say years, when the facts came into the notice of Smt. Surji, assisted by her daughter and son -in -law during consolidation proceedings, then the application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. was moved by Smt. Surji for cancellation of ex parte decree. This application was allowed on 31.5.2000. Revision, where -against, was dismissed in February, 2002. Writ petition filed by the plaintiff/respondent was also dismissed.