BAIJANTI BAI Vs. PRAGO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this second appeal, the two sisters who were fighting for the agricultural land situated at Survey No.957, area 7 Bigha 1 Biswa, in village Jaura Khurd, District Morena, and a residential house situated at village Shikarpur, left by their father Sardar Singh, have filed an application (I.A. No.VI of 1980) on 17-10-1989 under O.23, R.3, C.P.C., for disposing of the appeal in terms of the compromise.

(2.) Before recording compromise and passing a judgment and decree in terms of the compromise one Rajendra Kumar Goyal filed an application (I.A. No.V/ 1989) on 20-10-1980 under O.1, R.10 and O.22, R.10 road with S.151, C.P.C., stating therein that during the pendency of this appeal Pragobai, the plaintiff, had entered into an agreement for sale of her one-half share in the agricultural land on 23-8-1988 for a consideration of Rs. 1,05,000/-, out of which a sum of Rs. 25,000/- was paid to her as earnest money and the balance is to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed. Rajendra Kumar Goyal alleged that the two sisters have colluded to enter into a compromise to jeopardise his rights and interest; therefore, leave be granted to continue the appeal and he be ordered to be joined as a party to the appeal. The purchasers Rameshchandra Goyal, Vijayapal Singh, Dinesh Baboo Agrawal, Vinod Kumar Goyal, Mahendra Kumar and Ramkumar Bansod filed an application (I.A. No.VII/ 1989) on 3-11-1989 under O.22, R.10, C.P.C., with an affidavit of Rameshchandra Goyal, and photostat copies of two registered sale deeds dated 11th October 1989 (Annexures A and B) and a photostat copy of a general power of attorney executed by respondent Pragobai in favour of Jagdish Singh Jadoo, alleging that Pragobai through Jagdish Singh Jadoo, the holder of the general power of attorney, has sold the disputed land on 11-10-1989. The sale is with the consent of Rajendra Kumar Goyal; therefore, the rights and interest in the subject-matter of the suit stand transferred and assigned, leave be granted to them to continue the appeal and they be impleaded as parties to protect their interest and rights in the suit property.

(3.) The appellant Baijanti opposed those applications and filed reply with an affidavit stating that Pragobai is an illiterate lady, she never executed any general power of attorney in favour of Jagdish Singh Jadon, neither Pragobai entered into any agreement to sell the property, nor any sale deed was executed by her. No consideration was received by Pagobai. Jagdish Singh Jadon has no authority or power to sell or dispose of Pragobai's property. The documents are forged, false and personified. It was averred that the lis is already settled by way of compromise and stands terminated; hence, the dispute which involves complicated questions of fact and law, cannot be decided in this appeal, the purchasers who are strangers, are free to file a regular civil suit. Pragobai also filed the reply with affidavit on the same lines.