DAYARAM Vs. LAKSHMINA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 12-2-1992 passed by the Special judge, Gorakhpur arising from the order of the trial court dated 24-11-1988 passed in civil Suit No. 859 of 1983.

(2.) THE plaintiffs filed suit for the cancellation of the sale deeds dated 8-11 -1982 and 4-3-1982 which were executed by plaintiff no. 2, the mother of plaintiff No. 1. By the sale deed dated 8-3-1982 Araji No. 137 K rakba 42 decimal and Araji No. 256 Rakba 36 decimal total 78 decimal land were sold, while against sale deed dated 8-11-1982 araji No. 23 Rakba 52 decimal Araji No. 136 rakba 6 decimal Araji No. 165 Rakba 62 decimal total Rakba one acre 20 decimal were sold. It was claimed that plaintiff No. 2 was illiterate lady and intended to sell only 42 decimal land to the defendants. By committing a fraud and misrepresentation, the sale deed for 78 decimal was got executed on 8-3-82 and for other land sale deed was got executed on 8-11-82. After the sales, no land was left. The interest of the minor was involved in the land. It was mentioned that the sale consideration has already been paid and the same was not paid before the Registrar and the possession of the property in dispute is still with the plaintiffs. The trial court vide order dated 24-11-1988 decreed the suit and also declared the document dated 4-3-82 partially invalid and confined it to 42 decimal land and the appeal filed against the said order has been allowed by the impugned order and the order of the trial court has been set aside. The present appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-1-Whether in view of the fact that the plaintiff No. 2 mother of the plaintiff appellant was illiterate and rustic woman, the burden to prove the genuineness of the sale deed was on the defendants-respondents? 2-Whether the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court is against the weight of evidence on record?

(3.) HEARD Sri J. S. Pandey, holding brief of Sri Tarun Verma, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri C. K. Rai, learned counsel for the respondents.