RAM SEWAK DUBEY Vs. AJIRANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal has been preferred by the defendant-appellants against the judgement and decree dated 22-12-1980 passed by Sri G.S. Pandey, Additional Civil Judge, Gorakhpur, in Appeal No. 191 of 1978 by which the appeal preferred by the plaintiff-respondents was allowed and the judgement and decree dated 15-3-1978 passed by the 3rd Additional Munsif, Gorakhpur, in Original Suit No. 693 of 1968 dismissing the suit was set aside.

(2.) The original plaintiff Smt. Rituraji brought a suit for the cancellation of the sale deed dated 24-1-1969 alleged to have been executed by her in favour of the defendants on the allegations that after the death of her husband she was left with one daughter alone; that one of the daughters of the plaintiff was married to defendant No. 1 while defendants Nos. 2 and 3 were the collaterals of defendant No. 1; that after the death of the plaintiff's husband defendant No. 1 was looking after her and he started living with the plaintiff; that defendant No. 1 proposed to the plaintiff for a medical check up of her eyes and ears on account of the old age and brought her to Gorakhpur; that defendant No. 1 impressed upon the plaintiff that some document be executed by her so that her property may be divided equally amongst her daughters; that on the said pretext the plaintiff's thumb impressions on several blank papers were obtained by defendant No. 1; that sometime in June, 1969 the plaintiff could over-hear about the execution of the sale deed and on inspection it was revealed that the alleged sale deed which was said to have been executed by the plaintiff was the outcome of fraud and undue influence; that the alleged sale deed was never executed by her nor it was ever read over or explained to her; that no consideration had ever passed; that the marginal witnesses of the sale deed were none else but the nephew of defendant No. 1 and the other one a resident of the village of defendant No. 1; and that the alleged sale deed covered the entire agricultural holdings of the plaintiff.

(3.) The defendants contested the suit alleging that the plaintiff was burdened with loans and he required money to pay them off; that she herself offered and agreed to sell her holdings in favour of defendant No. 1; that defendant No. 1 purchased it for Rs. 6000/- out of which Rs. 4500/- were paid to the plaintiff at her residence while the remaining amount of Rs. 1500/- was paid to her before the Sub-Registrar, and that the allegations of fraud and undue influence made by the plaintiff were wrong.