LAWS(ALL)-2004-11-105

HARNAM MISHRA Vs. RAM KUMAR

Decided On November 29, 2004
HARNAM MISHRA Appellant
V/S
RAM KUMAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is second appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree passed by IVth Addition District Judge, Hardoi in Civil Appeal No. 60 of 1981 filed against the judgment and decree dated 24.2.1981, passed by IVth Addl. Munsif in Suit No. 171 (W) of 1980.

(2.) I have heard Shri K.C. Tripathi for the appellants. Nobody appeared from the side of the respondents to argue the appeal. Case of the plaintiffs-respondents :

(3.) The case of the plaintiffs is that they are the members of Joint Hindu Family and they owned their house as Joint Hindu Family property detailed in Schedule 'Aa' of the plaint. The item No. 3 of the Schedule of the plaint was sold by the plaintiffs jointly 15 years back. Thereafter, the plaintiff No. 1 Ram Kumar started living in another house which was purchased by him exclusively. Plaintiff No. 2 Ram Ratan started living in the house shown at item No. 1 of the Schedule 'Aa' along with his mother and Satish Chandra the son of the plaintiff No. 1. From the life time of their parents, the plaintiff No. 2 has been a person of sub-normal mind and he had always been under the influence of other persons. The defendants felt aggrieved against the plaintiff and taking due advantage of the subnormal mind of the plaintiff No. 2 and his unbecoming behaviour, the defendant got fictitious sale deed executed in his favour without consideration in respect of house mentioned at item No. 1 of the schedule of the plaint and subsequently also got executed another sale deed in respect of item No. 2. Both the sale deeds are void but the defendants started interfering in the peaceful possession over both these houses mentioned at item Nos. 1 and 2 of the schedule of the plaint. The defendant has acquired no right or title in these two houses but he is still trying to take possession. With these allegations the suit for cancellation of the sale deed was filed. Case of the defendant appellant :