RAMBHOOL Vs. SHEESHPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Rahul Kumar Tyagi, learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant and perused the record.

(2.) A registered sale-deed dtd. 31/5/2001 was executed by the plaintiff-appellant in favour of the defendant-respondents and the Original Suit No. 383 of 2010 was filed after nine years seeking cancellation of the sale-deed on the ground that the signatures of the plaintiff (vendor) were obtained by fraud and, in fact, the plaintiff-appellant had taken a loan of Rs.20,000.00 from the vendee and sale-deed was neither intended to be executed nor actually executed. The other plea was that the sale-deed was invalid for want of permission from the Competent Authority.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the plaintiff-appellant belongs to Scheduled Caste Community and, therefore, as per Sec. 157-AA of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (for short the Act, 1950), unless there was a permission accorded by the Competent Authority, sale-deed could not be executed. He further submits that both the courts below have also erred in not correctly examining the plea of fraud and by merely observing that the sale-deed being a registered document, there would be a presumption as regards its validity, the suit has been dismissed. He further submits that the plaintiff-appellant was not aware of the execution of sale-deed and when proceedings for disbursement of compensation by Avas Vikas Parishad were held and the purchasers/ defendants put their claim for getting the compensation, the plaintiff-appellant came to know about the fraud committed with him and, therefore, the suit was filed. He also submits that as per Sec. 166 of the Act, 1950, any transfer made in contravention of the provisions of the Act shall be void and, therefore, the sale-deed would be void for want of compliance of Sec. 157-AA.