REYAZ AHMAD Vs. PRABHU SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. B. Mehrotra, J. has been filed by the plaintiff-appellants challenging the order of the Additional Civil Judge, Bulandshahr, dated 10-9-1977 allowing the defendant's appeal and dismissing the plaintiff's suit for cancellation ' of a sale-deed dated, 6-5-1965 registered on 10-5-1965 executed by the plaintiffs in favour of the defendant.

(2.) SECOND Appeal No. 364 of 1982 has also been filed by the plaintiff-appellants wherein the plaintiff- appellants have challenged an order passed by the Civil Judge, Bulandshahr confirming the order of the Munsif directing restitution of possession to the defendant in pursuance of the order of the Civil Judge, dated 10-7-1977. It is not disputed that the plaintiffs were put in possession. in pursuance of the judgment and decree passed by Illrd Additional Munsif, Bulandshahr in Original 'suit No. 518 of 1968 filed by the plaintiffs for decreeing the suit for cancellation of the sale-deed, dated 6-5-1965 registered on 10-5-1965 executed by the plaintiffs in favour of the defendant. The decision in SECOND Appeal No. 3913 of 1978 will depend on the decision. in SECOND Appeal No. 364 of 1982, as such, both the appeals are to be heard and- decided together. It is also agreed between the parties the aforesaid SECOND Appeal may be heard' and decided together.

(3.) REYAZ Ahmad alias Raj Ahmad and others filed an original suit No. 518 of 1978 in the Court of Munsif Bulandshahr against the defendant respondent for cancellation 6f the sale-deed, dated 6-5-1965 registered on 10-5-1965 executed by REYAZ Ahmad and others in favour of the defendant for a consideration of Rs. 4000 only towards the prices of agricultural land measuring 5 Bigha 19 Biswa and 12 Biswansi. The plaintiffs filed the suit for cancellation of the sale-deed stating in the plaint that the plaintiffs and defendant are residents of same village. Plaintiffs were in active confidence of the defendant and were illiterate persons. Plaintiff No. 1 has put his signatures only in Urdu and plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 do not know reading or writing at all and had put in their thumb-impression. The submission of the plaintiff is that all the three plaintiffs were is need of money, they asked the defendant to advance a loan of Rs. 1,400 to which the defendant agreed to pay only on an execution of a mortgage deed with possession of the agricultural land of the mortgage their land and handover possession of the land for three years and defendant took advantage of the illiteracy of the plaintiffs and got executed a registered sale-deed instead of mortgage deed by defrauding the plaintiffs and paid only Rs. 1400 before the. Registrar, no other amount was paid. It was falsely mentioned in the sale-deed that Rs. 2,500 has been received earlier by the plaintiff. It was also stated in the plaint that value of the land was Rs. 30,000 and the defendant got it mentioned as Rs. 4,000 in the sale-deed. According to the plaintiffs this is a circumstance also to be taken into consideration for establishing a fraud on the defendant. The plaintiffs case is that they mortgaged the land only for a period of three years and after a lapse of a period of three years the possession of the land was transferred back to the plaintiffs and plaintiffs requested the defendant to execute the document for ' re-transferring the land, but the defendant refused to execute the said document. Consequent thereto the plaintiffs came to know that the defendant has got executed the sale-deed in his favour instead of mortgage deed. The' plaintiffs sought cancellation of the sale-deed on following grounds : (1) Plaintiffs never wanted to sell the land nor they were in a position to sell the land. (2) The land is of value of Rs. 30,000 and they could not have imagined of selling at Rs. 4,000. (3) The plaintiffs never received a sum of Rs. 2,500 r as has been alleged in the sale-deed. The plaintiffs only received Rs. 1,400 before the Registrar. The plaintiffs never understood the contents of the sale- deed and were only told that the mortgage deed for three years have been got executed by them. (4) The plaintiffs signed the document without listening the contents thereof and without understanding the contents thereof. (5) The plaintiffs were in active confidence of the defendant as they were in need of money. (6) For the aforesaid reasons the sale-deed got executed by the defendant is void and ineffective. The suit was contested by the defendant denying the aforesaid allegations. The trial court on the pleading of the parties framed issues. Only issue No. 1 -is relevant for the decision of the present appeal (1) Whether the sale-deed in suit is liable to be cancelled as alleged in para 7 of the plaint ?