MAHIPAL Vs. DEENA NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Dharampal Singh learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri S. Niranjan, learned Counsel for the appellant in both the appeals and Sri Mridul Kumar learned Counsel for respondents in both the appeals. Both the appeals have been filed by the plaintiff. Second appeal No. 6 of 2012 arises out of O.S. No. 166 of 2005 which was filed by the plaintiff for cancellation of sale-deed executed by him in favour of defendant respondent Deena Nath on 8.2.2005 in respect of his (plaintiff's) 1/3 share in agricultural land comprised in plot No. 619 total area 0.308 hectare for Rs. 17,500. Suit was dismissed on 5.1.2010 by Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) Jalaun at Orai. Against the said decree plaintiff appellant filed civil appeal No. 9 of 2010 which was dismissed on 22.9.2011 by A.D.J./Special Judge, (E.C.) Act, Jalaun at Orai which decree has been challenged through Second Appeal No. 6 of 2012.

(2.) Second appeal No. 7 of 2012 has also been filed by the same plaintiff appellant against defendants respondents Deena Nath and Shyam Karan (both are real brothers) for cancellation of sale-deed dated 18.1.2005 in respect of 1/6 share of the plaintiff appellant in agricultural plot No. 653 total area 4.606 hectare for Rs. 1,72,300. The said suit was also dismissed on 5.1.2010 by Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) Jalaun at Orai. Against the said decree plaintiff appellant filed Civil appeal No. 10 of 2010 which was dismissed on 22.9.2011 by A.D.J./Special Judge, (E.C. Act), Jalaun at Orai which decree has been challenged through second Appeal No. 7 of 2012.

(3.) The ground taken in both the suits was that plaintiff was habitual drunker and taking undue advantage of this weakness of plaintiff defendants offered wine to him on the dates on which sale-deeds were got executed by him and under the influence of the wine plaintiff could not know consequences of his action and the adverse effect which it would have on his affairs hence sale-deeds were void as he was not in his sense at the time of execution of the same and that getting the sale-deeds executed was fraudulent action of the defendant. It was also stated that sale consideration was not paid to the plaintiff in full. The defendants denied all the allegations of the plaintiff.