RAM ADHAR Vs. DHILAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants-appellant preferred this second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 7.11.1988 passed in Civil Appeal No. 119 of 1987 decreeing suit by reversing the judgment and decree dated 23rd February, 1987 in Original Suit No. 101 of 1985 for cancellation of sale deeds.

(2.) Plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for cancellation of sale deeds dated 27th November, 1984 and 14th December, 1984 registered on 28th November, 1984 and 15th December, 1984 in favour of defendant Nos. 1 to 4 on the allegations, inter alia, that plaintiff is bhumidhar of the land in dispute, his main source of earning is agriculture, he is an illiterate, old, infirm, ailing and rustic village person having no knowledge about Court proceedings, he has no son and has only one daughter Jaimurti who is serving him, two sons of his daughter Jaimurti are also residing with him, plaintiff wanted to execute Will in favour of his daughter Jaimurti so that after his death no dispute remains ; due to old age, weakness and ailment his eye sight also became very weak ; taking advantage of these weaknesses defendants took his thumb impression on the plain papers and assured him to take steps for execution of Will in favour of his daughter, subsequently it was discovered that a fraud was played on him by defendant and instead of execution of Will in favour of his daughter, defendant Nos. 1 to 4 got executed sale deeds in their favour, no sale consideration was paid, to him, the sale deeds are outcome of the fraud played by defendants on plaintiff, no application for permission to execute sale deeds was moved by plaintiff to consolidation authorities, any endorsement of payment of sale consideration, if made, on the sale deeds by Registrar is incorrect, as defendants refused to get sale deeds cancelled, hence suit for cancellation of the sale deeds.

(3.) From perusal of the record it transpires that on 29th November, 1985 suit against defendant Nos. 1 to 5 proceeded ex parte. Thereafter, on an application of Ram Asarey-defendant No. 2 ; he was permitted to file written statement, but any other defendants did not file written statement. In his written statement Ram Asarey denied averments made in the plaint and in additional pleadings further pleaded that plaintiff is a very clever and intelligent person, he is not ailing, he has disclosed his age more than his real age, plaintiff is conversant with the Court proceedings, he used to go Registrar's office and also to the Consolidation authorities, on his application to S.O.C. permission was granted on 14.11.1984, in pursuance thereof plaintiff executed sale deeds with his sweet will, no fraud was played on him, plaintiff read the contents of sale deeds and he also received Rs. 6,000 Rs. 7,000 before the Registrar, remaining amount was already paid to him, allegation of any mistrust or fraud on the ground that plaintiff wanted to execute Will is incorrect, plaintiff executed sale deed, he himself put his signature on the sale deeds and he never wanted to execute Will, defendants got possession immediately after execution of sale deed.