LAWS(ALL)-2004-2-112

ANGOORI DEVI Vs. POORAN SINGH

Decided On February 26, 2004
ANGOORI DEVI Appellant
V/S
POORAN SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff filed a suit in the year 1978 for cancellation of a sale deed dated 24-9-1959 allegedly executed by her in favour of defendant No.1 on the ground that it was obtained by fraud. The plaintiff alleged that she is an illiterate villager and her husband died in 1957-58 when she was only 19 years old. Defendant No.1 is the son of the elder sister of the plaintiff. After the death of the husband, the plaintiff fell ill, and the parents of defendant No.1 came to look after her and left defendant No.1 with the plaintiff as there was no male member in the plaintiffs family. The parents of defendant No. 1 requested the plaintiff to execute a will in favour of defendant No.1. This idea was relished by the plaintiff because at that time she was under the impression that she was dying. Accordingly the parents of defendant No.1 brought her to the Registrar's office where she placed her thumb impression on some papers which she thought was a will. The plaintiff further alleged that defendant No.1 remained with her for two or three years. Thereafter the behaviour of defendant No.1 became unruly towards the plaintiff and the plaintiff sent the defendant No.1 back to his parents place. In 1978, the plaintiff came to know that the defendant No.1 is negotiating the sale of the property with the defendant No.2. The plaintiff enquired into the matter and then came to know that a sale deed dated 24-9-1959 had been allegedly executed by her in favour of defendant No.1. It was asserted that the sale deed was obtained by fraud. Hence the suit was filed for cancellation of the sale deed dated 24-9-1959. She also prayed that a permanent injunction be granted restraining the defendant from interfering with her possession on the land in dispute.

(2.) The Defendant No.1 contested the suit and denied the plaint allegations. The defendant contended that the plaintiff executed the sale deed on her own accord. Since the plaintiff was only selling 1\3rd of the property, she applied before the Settlement Officer Consolidation for permission to sell the land in dispute and after getting the permission, she executed the sale deed. The plaintiff also gave a statement before the mutation Court on the basis of which the defendant's name was mutated in the revenue records. Not only this the plaintiff also filed a suit for partition which was decreed in which the plaintiff admitted that the defendant No.1 had 1/3 share in the property in dispute. The defendant further pleaded that the suit was barred by time; that the suit was not maintainable in view of Section 49 of U. P. C. L. H. Act and was also barred by the principle of res judicata.

(3.) The trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the sale deed was not obtained by fraud that the plaintiff was not ill and that the thumb impression in mutation proceedings was that of the plaintiff. The trial Court further held that both the parties were in possession of the land and that the suit was barred by time and also liable to be dismissed on the ground of constructive res judicata.