SANT KUMAR Vs. SHOKIRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant/defendant has filed this appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 03.02.2007 passed by 7th Additional District Judge(Fast Track), Gohad, District Bhind in Civil Appeal No.64 -A/2006 confirming the judgment and decree dated 27.06.2006 passed by 2nd Civil Judge Class II Bhind in Civil Suit No.51 -A/1998.

(2.) THIS second appeal has been filed by the appellants who are sons of respondent no.1 seeking a declaration that the sale deed executed by Shri Shokiram, respondent no.1 in favour of respondents no. 2 to 4 on the one hand and respondents no. 5 -8 on the other hand with respect to the suit property vide sale deed dated 18.09.1973 and 05.01.1982 is null and void. It is stated that since respondent no.1 has executed the sale deed in favour of Smt. Shanti Devi, their mother on 29.05.1962, Shri Shokiram was not left with any right or interest in the suit property and therefore the sale of suit property by him in favour of respondent no. 2 to 4 and 5 to 8 was invalid and have no interest in favour of the respondents. It is interesting to know that the sale deed has not been challenged by the mother.

(3.) IT is submitted that even though, the suit for cancellation of those title deeds was filed beyond three years, but the suits were filed only after coming to know about execution of those sale deeds and therefore, the suit was within time. However the Lower Court dismissed the suits filed by the appellants seeking declaration that the sale deed of the suit property executed by the respondent no.1 in favour of respondent no. 2 to 4 and 5 to 8 was invalid by holding that the suit was barred by limitation. It was also held, that the sale deed was executed in favour of respondents by their father, who was the husband of their mother and both of them were residing together. Moreover, the wife of respondent no.1 never got the property mutated in her name after execution of the sale deed on 29.05.1962 in her favour by respondent no.1. It shows that she has not interest in the property and has never claimed ownership over the said property.