SURENDRA KUMAR Vs. LAXMI BAI JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal has been preferred by the defendant aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 23. 8. 1993 passed by Vth Addl. District Judge, sagar, in regular civil appeal no. 25-A/92 which was filed against the judgment and decree dated 5. 10. 1990 passed by VIth Civil Judge Class-II, sagar, in civil suit no. 1-A/89.

(2.) ORIGINAL plaintiff Gulab Chand, since deceased, has filed the instant suit for cancellation of sale deed and for permanent injunction with respect to the suit house bearing no. 11-A situated at Ballabh Nagar Ward, Sagar. Plaintiff averred that he is the owner of the house in question and residing in the house. The portion of the house was in occupation of two tenants, namely, Gajadhar Sharma and Nandan Prasad parashar, they payed rent to the plaintiff. Plaintiff wanted to execute the sale deed in favour of his wife Laxmi Bai. The defendant took her to the Court and by playing fraud he got the sale deed executed in his own name. Plaintiff demanded the sale deed several times, it was not given by the defendant on the pretext that less valuation was shown in the sale deed as such sale deed will be given back after 4-6 months after enquiry. Defendant got his name illegally mutated by playing fraud. Sale deed for a sum of rs. 6,500 was got executed by the defendant in his own name. In the sale deed it was shown to be an open land whereas on the spot two storeyed house was situated, electricity was also fitted. Infact plaintiff had entered into an agreement with santosh Kumar Katare on 7. 10. 95 for sale of the house for a sum of Rs. 80,000, there was no question of selling the house to the defendant for a paltry sum of Rs. 6,500. Defendant was trying to illegally dispossess the plaintiff and committed marpeet with the plaintiff on 13. 6. 1988. He took the possession of certain articles of which report had been lodged by the plaintiff in PS,motinagar, a case under Section 307 IPC was registered against the defendant of which trial was pending before the competent Court. The defendant had taken forcible possession on 13. 6. 1986, plaint has been amended so as to incorporate the relief of possession also.

(3.) IN the written statement filed by defendant plaint averments have been denied contending that original plaintiff is father-in-law, marriage of sunita, daughter of brother of plaintiff was performed with the defendant on 2. 11. 85. Defendant is a driver, consequently sale deed was executed for a sum of Rs. 6,500 on 13. 1. 96. Due to relationship less consideration was received, inspite of the assurance plaintiff did not vacate the accommodation who was occupying the accommodation as tenant. No rent note was executed due to relationship. False report was lodged.