JAGARNATH Vs. RAM MILLAN AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SECOND appeal is directed against the judgement and de­cree dated 09.04.2009/21.04.2009 passed by Additional District Judge, Basti in Civil Appeal No. 20 of 2007 confirming the judgement and decree dated 30.04.2007 passed by Additional Civil Judge, (Junior Division) Basti in Original Suit No. 656 of 1990 between Jagarnath v. Ram Millan and another.

(2.) BRIEF background of the case is that Original Suit No. 656 of 1990 had been filed for ratification of sale deed dated 23.03.1990 and also for permanent injunc­tion qua plot shown in scheduled-B of the foot of the plaint situated at village Chauwahe Tehsil District Basti. Ground taken was that said sale deed in question was intended for his property situated at Mauza Setha but by practising fraud document in question has been got executed by defendants in their favour of the property situated at village Chauwahe Tehsil and District Basti which is described in the plaint. Said suit was contested by filling written statement and therein plea was taken that plaintiff is a intelligent men and that he is transacting for selling property situated at village Chauwahe Tehsil District Basti and after due consideration has been paid document in question has been executed before Sub-Registrar and the fact of the matter is that qua property situated at village Mauza setha no talks has ever been held. On the pleadings of the parties in all four issues were framed. From the side of plaintiff Jagarnath appeared as PW-1, Chandra Shekher appeared as PW-2 and by means of list 10-GA various documentary evidence has been filed. Similarly from the side of the defendant, DW-1 Ram Milan and DW-2 Balram were got examined and documentary evidence was also filed. Trial Court on the basis of evidence available on record clearly found and recorded finding that sale deed in question has been executed for the same property for which negotiation has been entered into and this is not at all case of ratification. Aggrieved plaintiff preferred appeal and said appeal has also been dismissed. At this juncture present second appeal has been filed.

(3.) IN the present case both the courts below have recorded categorical find­ing of fact that as far as plaintiff is concerned he is having interest in both places i.e village setha, Tehsil Harraiya, District Basti as well as at village Chauwahe Tehsil District Basti and the plaintiff has got place of residence at both the vil­lages. From the side of plaintiff to show his residence, he has filed Nakal Parivar register of Mauza Chauwahe whereas defendants has produced evidence to show and substantiate that in the Nakal Parivar register plaintiff was shown resident of village Setha, and further in the voter list of village Mauza Chauwahe name of plaintiff has not at all been shown. Plea has been set up by plaintiff that he was not at all required to sale the land situated at Mauza Chauwahe, and he intended to sell land situated at village Setha. Case set up by plaintiff has not found favour being contrary to record produced. This finding of fact has also been re­turned that in case property situated at Mauza Chauwahe Tehsil Harriya, District Basti is to be sold then for selling said property one will have to go to Tehsil Harriaya whereas property situated at village Setha was to be soled then one will have to go to the office of Sub-Registrar Basti. In the present case admittedly plaintiff appeared before Sub-Registrar, Basti which was clearly indicative of fact that he had full knowledge that he has transferred the property situated at Mauza Chauwahe. Documentary evidence etc has also been considered and on the basis of the same finding of fact has been returned that this is not a case of ratification rather document in question has been executed with full knowledge and averments mentioned in suit are not sustainable.