RAMDEVI BAI Vs. KANAK SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the defendants, which was admitted by a Bench of this Court on the following substantial questions of law:--

(2.) The defendants filed the written statement in which execution of the sale-deeds dated 20-2-1986 was denied and it was pointed out that the defendant No. 1 had leased out the land in the year 1984-85 to the plaintiff No. 2. However, the plaintiff No. 2 fraudulently got the thumb impression of the defendant No. 1 on the sale-deeds on the pretext that the documents pertain to lease. It was further pleaded that the sale-deeds (Exhs. P-1 and P-2) are forged documents and the order of mutation in favour of the plaintiffs has been set aside by the Sub-Divisional Officer and the defendant No. 1 is in possession of the suit lands as owner thereof.

(3.) The Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 20-1-2000 inter alia held that though the defendant No. 1 has admitted her thumb impression on the documents (Exhs. P-1 and P-2) yet she had stated in her evidence that she put her thumb impression on the documents under impression that the said documents pertain to lease. It was further held that the burden was on the plaintiffs to prove the execution of the sale-deeds, i.e., Exhs. P-1 and P-2, however, the plaintiffs failed to discharge the same. The Trial Court also held that the witnesses to the sale-deeds, namely, Genda Lal and Nand Kishore were not examined as they are sons of the plaintiffs and since the documents (Exhs. P-1 and P-2) are ab initio void, therefore, it is not necessary for the defendant No. 1 to seek cancellation of the same. It was also found that the defendants were in possession of the suit lands since 1987 and, therefore, no injunction can be granted in favour of the plaintiffs; Accordingly, the suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed.