PRAHLAD Vs. SARVAJEET

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has been filed by the defendant against the judgement and decree of the First Appellate Court dtd. 17/12/1994 by which the First Appeal of the plaintiff was allowed and the Suit of the plaintiff which was earlier dismissed by the Trial Court on 5/3/1992 was decreed. The plaintiff - Sarvajeet - (the respondent here) had filed a suit being Original Suit No. 445 of 1989 for the relief that the sale deed dtd. 27/9/1988 be cancelled. The Suit was based on the fact that the plaintiff was an elderly person and was dependent on the father of the defendants in whom the plaintiff had confidence and who had, therefore, the capacity to influence the decision taking capacity of the plaintiff.

(2.) The plaintiff further had taken a case that on the date when the sale deed was executed i.e. on 27/9/1988, the plaintiff who was suffering from cataract had acute fever and had gone to the office of the Registrar at Tehsil Sagari on the pretext that Kishori the father of the defendants would get him treated by a good doctor. It has been alleged in the plaint that instead of getting the plaintiff treated, the father of the defendants fraudulently got executed the sale deed on 27/9/1988 in favour of the defendants. The defendants in their written statements, however, took a case that the plaintiff had executed the sale deed in question with his free mind and will and on the date when he executed the sale deed, he was in sound mental condition. Further, they stated that the sale deed was executed for a proper consideration. At the Registrar Office, the plaintiff had been informed about the contents of the document and the document which he was going to put his signature on. He had understood the contents of the document and after taking full consideration he had executed the sale deed. The Trial Court had put the burden on the plaintiff of proving that the plaintiff was ill on the relevant date and had put the burden of proving that consideration had passed from the defendants to the plaintiff on the defendants. The Trial Court found the oral evidence of P.W. - 1 Ram Nagina as a heresy evidence as his evidence regarding his knowledge of the illness of the plaintiff, Sarvajeet, was through the father of the defendants himself. Further the Trial Court analysed the testimony of the plaintiff to see to his physical and mental status and went through the evidence which was brought before the Court. The plaintiff had stated in his examination in chief that, to begin with, he had got himself treated by one Dr. Tirathram and when he did not get any benefit out of his treatment he had changed the Doctor and had started taking treatment of one Doctor Yadava. When he did not get any relief from their treatment and when the defendant's father, in whom the plaintiff had full confidence and faith, suggested that he showed himself to the Doctor at Sagari, the plaintiff had readily agreed. The plaintiff had not brought in the witness box the Doctors who had treated him. However, he produced the prescriptions which were again not proved by the Doctor who had prescribed them. However, since the plaintiff had produced those prescriptions they were considered in evidence and it was found that when on the first occasion the plaintiff was given the medicines on 16/9/1988 then they were prescribed for a period of five days. Thereafter on 20/9/1988, the medicines were slightly changed and they were prescribed for three days more. On 23/9/1988, the temperature and pulse recorded by the Doctor were normal. Therefore, it has been concluded by the Trial Court that three days after 23/9/1988, the plaintiff's physical condition was absolutely normal. There is no evidence on record, it has been stated by the Trial Court, to prove that the condition of the plaintiff deteriorated thereafter. The Trial Court also took into consideration certain facts about the family of the plaintiff which were brought on record by the defendants and was not denied by the plaintiff.

(3.) It was brought on record that the plaintiff had six brothers and they were all living in the neighbourhood. However, none of them appeared in the witness box to corroborate the case of the plaintiff that he was seriously ill on the date when the sale deed was executed.