SUMITRA DEVI Vs. FIRST ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE BASTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) P. K. Jain, J. The respondent No. 3 Smt. Sumitra Devi filed suit No. 185/91 against the petitioner for cancellation of sale-deed, dated 19-9-1989 (registered on 23-3-1990) and for possession in case the Court finds possession of the defendants or any portion of the suit property and further relief claimed was for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over the properties described in Schedule C of the plaint. It was claimed by the plaintiff that she was Bhumidhar in possession of the properties described in Schedule Aa, Ba and Sa of the plaint. After death of her husband, the plaintiffs, and defendants No. 2 and 3 contested series of litigations in Civil as well as Revenue Courts. Defendant No. 2 on the basis of forged Will and defendant No. 3 on the basis of illusory family settlement con tested the said litigation against the plain tiff but they were unsuccessful. The plain tiff has been carrying on the agricultural activities with the help and supervision of one Chandra Hari Shukla. She has also executed a Will dated 19-9-1989 in favour of Chandra Hari Shukla which was not liked by the defendant No. 4. After execu tion of the said Will defendant No. 4 started gaining sympathy of the plaintiff even though he was in collusion with the defendants No. 1 to 3. Defendant No. 4, in collusion with remaining defendants made a proposal to the plaintiff that she may not bequeath her entire property to Chandra Hari Shukla. She may give property of village Bas Pokhar to Chandra Hari Shuk la and may give property of village Pachaura to defendant No. 4 and may ex ecute a Will in this regard. She was promised that Rs. 3 (), 0 ()0/- which was kept with defendant No. 4 shall be deposited in the name of the plaintiff. On 19-9-1989 defendant No. 4, brought the plaintiff to Basti and represented that he had come to get Will in favour of Chandra Hari Shukla registered. The defendant No. 4 got a document prepared contents of which were not known to the plaintiff and repre senting that the documents related to be queathing the properties of village Pachaura to defendant No. 4 and that of village Bas Phokhar to Chandra Hari Shukla, her thumb impressions were ob tained by the defendant No. 2 in collusion with the remaining defendants. The docu ment was got registered. The defendants No. 1 to 3 cladestinely got their names mutuated in the Revenue Record on the strength of said document. No notice or summons were issued to the plaintiff. In the month of August, 1991, the defendants started claiming that they, will not permit the plaintiff to cultivate the land and they would make unauthorised possession over her house. It was then that the plaintiff came to know that the deed dated 19-9-1989 was not Will but the sale-deed in favour of the defendants No. 1 to 3. The plaintiff obtained a copy of Khatauni. She claimed that the documents in question was void and was liable to be cancelled. It was on these allegations that the aforesaid reliefs were claimed.

(2.) THE defendants contested the suit on various grounds and denying the aforesaid claims they pleaded that the suit was barred by the provision of Section 331of U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act. It was also pleaded that the consolidation operation in the village had started and Civil Court has no jurisdiction and the suit stands abated.

(3.) THE defendants filed a revision before the District Judge, Basti which was also dismissed vide judgment and order dated 20-4-1993.