BALRAM KIRAR Vs. RAMKRISHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's second appeal under S. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (to be called as "Code" only).

(2.) Balram Kirar (since deceased LRs. brought on record to be called as plaintiff only). On 28-8-1978 filed a civil suit for declaration that document dated 9-1-1967 is not a sale deed but is a mortgage deed and for possession of argicultural land khasra No. 4 area 27.62 situate in village Ghogra-purakhakrapura, district Hoshangabad. As per plaint the plaintiff was in need of money and had approached Ram Ratan (R.2) for taking loan on which Ram Ratan insisted that the plaintiff has to mortgage his land. Ram Ratan (R. 2) is a money lender who advances loan to villagers and gets executed sale deeds of their lands. On 9-1-1967 the plaintiff went to the Sub Registrar's office Hoshangabad and Ram Ratan (R. 2) got his thumb mark on certain papers without reading over the contents thereof. It was agreed between the parties that Ram Ratan (R. 2) would take the usufruct of the land and trees in lieu of interest. On O.70 acres of land on which the house and bada of plaintiff was situated was to remain in possession of the plaintiff. Later in year 1975, plaintiff several times approached Ram Ratan (R. 2) to return the money which was avoided by him and thus this suit had to be filed. Market value of the land and trees was about Rs. 64,000/- Ram Ratan (R. 2) had got mutated the name of his son Ram Krishna (R. 1) only on 24-10-1977. Plaintiff could come to know about the fraud committed by Ram Ratan (R. 2) on 20-7-1978 when he obtained a copy of the deed that by committing fraud on him instead of mortgage deed a sale deed was got executed by Ram Ratan (R.2).

(3.) The respondents No. 1 and 2 in their joint written statement claimed that the plaintiff had sold his land as he required money to repay the Government loan. Plaintiff wanted to shift to District Sehore where he had to purchase land. The suit land was of poor nature, unproductive and valueless. Plaintiff had never proposed to take loan or execute any agreement. No such term was settled that the respondents No. 1 and 2 shall be taking usufruct of the lands and trees in lieu of interest. Plaintiff was not to retain possession of 0.70 acres of land. Possession of whole was handed over to these respondents. Plaintiff had never tendered the amount of Rs. 1500/-. Ram Ratan (R. 2) is not a money lender. Value of suit land or trees grown on it was not Rs. 64.000/-. It was also claimed that the plaintiff should pay ad valorem Court fees on such value of lands and trrees as claimed by him. The land was so poor that its land revenue was only Rs. 0.25 per acre. Trees standing thereon were young. The respondents No. 1 and 2 have invested money in improvement of the land. The suit was barred by limitation.