KHADAK SINGH Vs. HULKAR SINGH ALIAS CHOTA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a plaintiffs second appeal against the reversing judgment of District Judge, Seoni.

(2.) KHADAK Singh (appellant) has been Bhumiswami of Khasra No. 15/1, area 1. 86 hectares of Village Imaliya (to be called as suit land ). As per plaint, Khadak Singh (appellant) is an old and physically infirm person. He was in need of money hence he gave the suit land on Theka to Hulkar Singh (the respondent) for the years 1988-89 and 1989-90 on yearly premium of Rs. 4. 000/ -. It is claimed that Khadak Singh (the appellant) is illiterate person whose signatures were taken on some paper by Hulkar Singh (the respondent ). It is claimed that despite Khadak Singh's demand Hulkar Singh (the respondent) did not return back possession of the suit land to him; hence Khadak Singh (the appellant) applied to the Naib-Tehsildar who dismissed the application, hence this civil suit for possession.

(3.) HULKAR Singh (the respondent) claimed that in July 80 Khadak Singh (the appellant) had agreed to sell thesuit land for Rs. 11,500/- and had handed over possession of the same and Hulkar Singh (the respondent) is continuing in peaceful open possession of the same. The suit land was not given on Theka. Any how on 11 -5-84 Khadak Singh (the appellant) had executed an Ikrarnama after receiving Rs. 8,000/ -. Later remaining amount of Rs. 3,500/- has also been paid. Khadak Singh (the appellant) is neither old or physically infirm person. He has contracted a second marriage with Kamlabai and has 4 offsprings from her, the youngest being born in year 1990. It was claimed that on pleadings of Khadak Singh (the appellant) himself, Hulkar Singh (the respondent) has become Bhumiswami of the suit land under Section 168 read with Section 190 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (to be called as 'code' only ). In the alternative, it was claimed that Hulkar Singh (the respondent) has perfected his title by long possession. A counter-claim for execution of sale-deed of the suit land in specific performance of contract was also preferred in which a claim for return of Rs. 11,500/- with interest was also put. Such a counter-claim was contested by Khadak Singh on the ground that Hulkar Singh (the respondent) has prepared a forged receipt taking advantage of his inability and illiteracy.