SMT. FAIYAZAN Vs. ZAKARIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is by the plaintiff No. 4 alone directed against the concurrent judgments of the courts below dismissing the suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 26.7.84 executed by the plaintiff Nos. 1 to 3 in favour of contesting defendant. The plaintiffs' case was that plaintiff Nos. 1 to 3 were recorded co -bhumidhars in possession of the land to an extent to share 1/6th. The defendant -respondent is also a co -bhumidhar in the suit land. An agreement to sell dated 3.4.84 in respect of 1/16th share in the land was executed by the plaintiff Nos. 1 to 3 in favour of the plaintiff No. 4 the present appellant. It is not disputed that the plaintiff No. 4 appellant got a sale deed executed in her favour by the plaintiff Nos. 1 to 3 in respect of the suit land on 4.4.86. The plaintiffs pleaded that plaintiff No. 4 appellant is in possession of the land since after purchase. The appellant -plaintiff No. 4 and co -plaintiffs 1 to 3, who are not the appellants in this appeal pleaded in their plaint that the defendants got a sale deed fictitiously executed in their favour from the plaintiff Nos. 1 to 3 and got it registered on 5.10.84 for a consideration of Rs. 19,500/ -. The plaintiff Nos. 1 to 3 had pleaded that they had not received any consideration and the sale deed in question was forged, fictitious and void document which was not binding on the plaintiff Nos. 1 to 3 and the defendant was requested to get it cancelled he declined hence the suit. The plaintiff No. 4 the present appellant was impleaded in the suit later on.

(2.) THE defendant had contested the suit on the ground that plaintiffs had executed the sale deed in question without any un due influence after receiving consideration. The defendant -respondent pleaded to be in possession and cultivating the said land. The defendant also pleaded that the sale deed was obtained after permission from the Consolidation Officer, Meerut vide order dated 26.6.84.

(3.) IN appeal, the findings of the trial court about the due execution and genuineness of the sale deed dated 26.7.84 registered on 5.10.84 was held valid and reaffirmed. Before the lower appellate court, the appellants had argued challenging the findings of the trial court about the due execution of the sale deed and its genuineness given in favour of the defendants -respondents.