SHEO LAL VERMA Vs. SUDAMIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ;-

(2.) THIS is a defendant's second appeal in a suit for cancellation of a sale deed executed on 17-3-1969 by one Smt. Kailasya in favour of her son-in-law Sheo Lal. The plaintiff Smt. Sudamiya is the widowed daughter-in-law of Smt. Kailasya. The relief of possession over the land, which Was the subject-matter of the conveyance, and is situate in two villages, namely, Jalalpur Neori and Kanera Mai, Pergana Koda, District Fatehpur, was originally held by Tulsi, the husband of Smt. Kailasya and father-in-law of Smt. Sudamiya. Smt. Kailasya having died during the pendency of the suit in the trial court, her name was struck off and Sheo Lal, the appellant, remained the sole defendant in the suit. After the death of Tulsi, the husband of Smt. Kailasya, and their son Devanand, the husband of Smt. Sudamiya, Smt. Kailasya filed two suits u/Sec. 229-B of theUP ZA & LR Act, 1951, for declaration of her title to the land against Smt. Sudamiya. These suits were compromised on the terms that both Smt. Kailasya and Smt. Sudamiya were to be recognized as the tenure-holders of the land in suit in both the villages in equal shares, but neither of them could, during their life time, alienate their respective shares; but, on the death of either of them the survivor was to possess the whole land as the sole tenure-holder with full rights of alienation. In course of time, there was consolidation of holdings in the village and while in the village Kanera- Mai the two widows were allotted a joint Chak, in village Jalalpur Neori separate Chaks were allotted to them. Thereafter, on 17-3-1969, Smt. Kailasya sold her entire right, title and interest in the land, after acquiring Bhumidhari rights, for Rs. 10,000/- to her son-in-law Sheo Lal, the defendant-appellant. The validity of the sale deed was impugned in the suit giving rise to the present second appeal on the following grounds:- That the sale deed was without consideration as no consideration had in fact been paid by Sheo Lal to Smt. Kailasya-the consideration shown to have been paid was fictitious and sham; 2. Smt. Kailasya was not competent to execute the sale deed inasmuch as she had no right to do so in view of the terms of the aforesaid compromise; 3. Sheo Lal was not in possession of any of the land and although mutation had secretly been got effected in favour of Sheo Lal in Village Kanera Mai, no mutation had been effected till then in Village Jalalpur Neori; and 4. The market price of the land was much more than Rs. 10,000/-.

(3.) THE lower appellate court generally confirmed the said findings and decree of the trial court. Hence, this second appeal.