VIDHYAWATI Vs. JIA LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ABOVE mentioned appeals filed under Section 100 CPC are directed against the judgment and decree dated 25.11.2013 passed by Sri Bhoopendra Sahai, Additional District Judge, Faizabad dismissing the Civil Appeal No. 121 of 2010 directed against the judgment and decree dated 17.7.2010 whereby Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), Faizabad decreed the Original Suit No. 224 of 1986.

(2.) BOTH the appeals are directed against the same judgment and decree, hence they are being disposed of by a common judgment.

(3.) FACTS , in brief, are that Balli filed Regular Suit No. 224 of 1986 for cancellation of sale -deed dated 21.12.1985 on the ground that he never executed any sale -deed as he had no need of executing the sale -deed which is liable to be cancelled. It was alleged in the plaint that plaintiff is owner of plot nos. 316, 329 and 872. In plot no. 316, plaintiff Balli had built five shops, out of which one was given to Smt. Vidyawati, defendant, who was tenant at the rate of Rs. 100/ - per month. Rest shops were given to other tenants. Plot No. 329 was divided into four parts and it was given to four persons. Sale -deed of part of this plot has been executed in favour of one of them namely Smt. Baddarunisha wife of Abdul Qayoom. He also owns a plot situated in village Jalalpur which was being used for agricultural purposes. On 20.7.1986, his nephew (son of sister) told that defendant has been claiming right on the basis of sale -deed whereafter plaintiff made enquiry from registry office, Jalalpur and then found that some sale -deed has been executed on his behalf in favour of Vidyawati and ex parte mutation was also got done. Objection was raised before the revenue court. Plaintiff being 65 years old is a rustic villager. Plaintiff used to visit the shop of Vidyawati frequently whose husband is also a very cunning person who used to offer wine to the plaintiff . He also used to drop the plaintiff at his house whenever plaintiff remained under the influence of liquor. It appears that he obtained signature on some document i.e. alleged sale -deed in an intoxicated state. Plaintiff never visited the office of Sub -Registrar and never executed any sale -deed at his house.