SRIKANT SINGH Vs. RAM KESARI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. B. Mehrotra, J. The present second appeal has been instituted by defendant appellant.

(2.) THE essential facts necessary for adjudication of the appeal are as under; Dhannu Singh and Smt. Ramkesari Devi who is daughter-in-law of Dhanni Singh, filed Suit No. 48/5 in the Court of Sixth Additional Munsif Ghazipur against Srikant and in that suit prayed for the relief that the sale deed dated 20-11-1974 executed by Dhannu Singh in favour of Srikant be cancelled and it be declared that the said sale deed is void.

(3.) IT has further been mentioned in the plaint that the disputed pro perty which has been described in Schedule B, half share was owned by plaintiff No. 1 and half by Srikant defendant and out of that share 1/4 was of his son Brahma Singh. This way, the plaintiff had executed his Will in favour of both parties regarding only 1/4 of his share. According to plaint the share of Brahma Singh came to be owned by Smt. Kesari Devi and in this light the aforesaid Will should be held to operate to the extent the plaintiff had the power to execute Will pertaining to his own share. In this very sequence it has been further averred in the plaint that on 28-11-1974 the defendant Sri Kant told plaintiff that the Will dated 3-10- 1974 has to be obtained from registrar's office as Registrar of Ghazipur told him that the copy of the Will be given only to Dhannu Singh, so it was necessary for Dhannu Singh to visit the registration office and as per that statement the plaintiff Dhannu Singh went to Qasba Zamania with Srikant. The defendant No. 1 sent the plaintiff to registrar's office and got prepared a sale-deed without knowledge of the plain tiff No. 1 and obtained thumb mark from the plaintiff merely by telling that the copy of Will can be available only after putting thumb-mark, believing that suggestion the plaintiff put his thumb-mark on many places as directed in the registry office, thereafter when the plaintiff No. 1 came to his house, demanded the copy of Will from defendant and asked the defendant as to why he had obtained his thumb marks at many places, even then when he did not get the copy of Will, a suspicion arose to plaintiff that his thumb-marks have been obtained at many places in the registry office some cheating may have been done, upon which many a time the plaintiff demanded from defendant the copy of the Will, however, the defendant, indulged in pretexts. Thereupon, that plaintiff No. 2 along with Mahatim the brother-in-law of her husband, went to registry office Zamania, on search it was found that on 28- 11-1974 on the pretext of getting back the Will-deed the defendant had got executed sale-deed from Dhannu Singh in respect of properties of Schedule A, and it was also stated that Ohannu Singh has not executed any will deed, there, and on getting the enquiry done, the plaintiff No. 2 told the entire happenings to plaintiff No. 1 upon which the dispute arose, consequently both the plaintiffs filed suit No. 48/75.