LAWS(ALL)-2014-4-134

KOKILA DEVI Vs. LALLAN BABU

Decided On April 21, 2014
Kokila Devi Appellant
V/S
Lallan Babu Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri S.C. Tiwari, learned Counsel for appellants and Sri S.D. Yadav, learned Counsel for respondents on the admission of appeal. This second appeal has been preferred by defendants, challenging the judgment and decree of the Courts below decreeing the suit for cancellation of sale-deed filed by plaintiff-respondent.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred as they were described in Trial Court, i.e., as plaintiff/defendant, unless specified otherwise.

(3.) Lallan Babu and Rajesh Singh, plaintiffs alleged that their father Deshraj, 82 years old, was not mentally sound; taking advantage of said fact, their brother Santosh Kumar (defendant-appellant No. 3) and his wife Smt. Kokila Devi (defendant-appellant No. 1) got executed registered sale-deed dated 24.7.2004 from their father Deshraj in favour of their minor children Shailendra Kumar and Shivendra Kumar of plot No. 138 (area-0.398 hectares) and another sale-deed dated 23.12.2009 in favour of defendant-appellant Nos. 1 and 2 of plot No. 69 (area-1.735 hectares). It was alleged that in both sale-deeds, no sale consideration ever passed and that the land in dispute was ancestral and the same was not the self-acquired property of defendant No. 4 (since deceased). Thus, the plaintiffs filed suit for cancellation of registered sale-deeds dated 24.7.2014 and 23.12.2009. The suit was contested by defendant. Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 on the ground that under the registered sale-deed dated 23.12.2009 after receiving sale consideration of Rs. 2,50,000/-, same was executed in favour of defendant. Nos. 1 and 2, whereas sale-deed dated 24.7.2004 was also executed by defendant No. 5 in favour of children of defendant No. 1 and 2, i.e., Shailendra and Shivendra after receiving a sale consideration of Rs. 1,00,000/- and since the date of execution of sale-deeds/purchasers, are in possession thereof. The defendant No. 4 also filed his written statement and appears to have supported the case of plaintiffs by stating that no sale consideration ever passed under the sale-deeds.