LAWS(ALL)-2006-2-202

RAM LAKHAN Vs. GHURAHOO

Decided On February 22, 2006
RAM LAKHAN Appellant
V/S
Ghurahoo Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal of the plaintiff has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 20.9.1986 passed by the lower appellate court (IInd. Addl. District Judge, Ghazipur).

(2.) THE appellant had filed a suit for cancellation of a sale-deed dated 10.12.1984 on several grounds taken in the pleadings including the ground that the sale had been obtained by practicing fraud upon him which could be easily manipulated by the defendant/respondent on account of his old age and also on account of his being illiterate. He further stated that no consideration in the present transfer by sale had passed from the defendant to him and he was cleverly deceived by the respondent, who represented to the plaintiff that he wanted a surety bond to be executed by him to indemnify the defendant towards the payment of some dues to the Government. The plaintiff was also given to understand that in case he did not execute the surety bond, the defendant/respondent might face arrest and detention for such nonpayment of the dues. After having been fully convinced by the crafty talks of the defendant and on account of being under his influence from before, the plaintiff agreed to execute the surety bond and he was taken to the court premises where instead a bond this sale-deed was got executed by fraud and misrepresentation.

(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed as many as five issues and in the findings of issues No. 1 and 5 taken together it was held that no consideration passed for the disputed sale of property and that was the only property held and possessed by the plaintiff as a source of his livelihood and virtually there was no occasion in such circumstances to transfer the property showing it to be a transaction of sale. Accordingly the learned trial court having believed the story set up in the plaint about fraud and misrepresentation played upon the plaintiff by the defendant found that the sale-deed in question was liable to be cancelled and accordingly after giving formal finding on the other issues decreed the suit with costs.