RATNESH KUMAR Vs. JAGDISH PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (09.05.2012) This appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2005, passed in Civil Suit No.44-A/2004, by the VI Addl. District Judge, Rewa, decreeing the suit of the respondent No.1/plaintiff.

(2.) BRIEF facts giving rise to filing of this appeal are that the respondent No.1/plaintiff filed a Civil Suit for declaration of the sale deed dated 19.12.2002 as null and void, alleging that he was the owner in possession of land bearing Khasra Nos. 18/1, 7/1 and 22/1 of Village Jaraha, Tahsil Gurh, District Rewa. The appellant No.1 is the nephew of respondent No.1/plaintiff. The elder brother of appellant was looking after the respondent 2 No.1/plaintiff and out of the love and affection, a gift deed was executed by the respondent No.1/plaintiff in favour of the said nephew. However, taking advantage of the ill-health of respondent No.1/plaintiff, the sale deed Ex.D/2 was got executed and registered. The respondent No.1/plaintiff came to know about such a fact only when the mutation proceedings were done and the appellants tried to take possession of the land by dispossessing the respondent No.1/plaintiff, therefore, the suit was required to be filed.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants has contended that overall evidence of the witnesses if examined, the findings recorded by the Court below cannot be approved. To show the perversity of the findings recorded by the Court below, learned counsel for the appellants has taken this Court to the statements of witnesses recorded by the lower Court. Referring the statement of DW/2, it is indicated that he was attesting witness of the said document and he has admitted the signature on the back of the said document. If such a signature is proved, by recording the evidence, as per the law, more appropriately, as per the provisions of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, it was to be held that the sale deed was proved. If such a registered document is proved, the entire claim made by the respondent No.1/ plaintiff was to be denied. Having not considered such piece of evidence, it is contended by the learned counsel for appellants that the Court below has not given the cogent findings based on the evidence available on record.