BABOOLAL Vs. RATANLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 2 -3 -1973, passed by the First Additional District Judge, Morena in Civil Appeal No. 11 -A/69, whereby the judgment and decree dated 19 -7 -1969, passed by the Civil Judge, Class II, Sabalgarh in Civil Suit No. 22/66 was confirmed.

(2.) THE plaintiff's suit was on the following allegations: that he is an illiterate and a blind villager and there is no one to look after him; he owns land admeasuring 20 Bighas 11 Biswas, the land revenue of which is Rs. 50.36 and which is situated in village Mangrol, pargana Sabalgarh. District Morena. People belonging to the said village are after his property and somehow they want to take advantage of his disability Upto 1961, his sister Kinti was looking after him, but because of some family matters, she left him and there was no one to look after him. The defendant's father Ramratan, taking advantage of this opportunity, kept the plaintiff with himself and told him that if he will execute a Patta in favour of his son, then the other persons who want to grab his property, will be defeated in their intention. Believing this, on 7 -6 -1961, he executed a Patta for eight years of Survey No. 563, 789/1 and 790. There was wrong mention of one number. Therefore, that mistake was corrected subsequently The Patta mentions that Rs. 200 - were paid as consideration to the plaintiff The plaintiff has challenged this Patta on the allegation that it was got executed from him by practising fraud on him. The Patta is with it any consideration. The Patta is in favour of a minor and, therefore, that is not valid. As the Patta is unilateral it will not bind the plaintiff because the plaintiff never accepted it and the transaction of Patta is a sham one Alleging this, he submitted that the possession of the disputed property should be given back to him and if defendant takes possession forcibly of Survey No. 789/1, then that may also be given to him. He also claimed Rs. 1,000/ - as mesne profits per year.

(3.) BEFORE proceeding further, I will have to take into consideration litigations which were decided between Ratanlal, the plaintiff on one hand and Shridharlal and Ramdayal and also the appellant on the other hand. Cases Numbers are 56/64 C. O., 59/64 C. O. and 20/65 C. O. in the Court of the Second Civil Judge Class II, Sabalgarh. There were other litigations also, but they are not of much importance to decide the matter before me. Ratanlal, on 16 -1 -64, sold his land including the land in dispute. The suit No. 59/64 was filed by Ratanlal against Shridharlal for cancellation of the sale -deed effected in favour of Shridharlal of Rs. 3,000. In that plaint, it is mentioned that the sale -deed dated 16 -1 -1964, is without consideration and, therefore, it is void. It is also mentioned that the consideration Was meagre looking to the price of the land which was sold under the sale -deed. The other suit is No. 56/64 which was filed by Shridharlal and Ramdayal against Ramratan, Babulal and Ratanlal for declaration that they are the owners of the land in dispute under the sale -deed executed on 16 -1 -1964 and for an injunction that the defendants may not disturb the possession of theirs. An application under Order 39, rules 1 & 2, C.P.C. was filed in the above mentioned suit. When an adverse order was passed against the present plaintiff, the matter was taken up in appeal before the Second Additional District Judge, Morena (Appeal No. 26 of 1964). In that appeal, an affidavit was filed by Ratanlal, in which he has stated that he has executed a Patta in favour of the present appellant, but as to consideration, he says that he has to pay about Rs. 1,300 and the property was mortgaged with them. The suit No. 59/64 was compromised on 23 -1 -1965, in which Ratanlal has given an application that he does not want to proceed with the suit. Copy of the order dated 1 -1 -1966 shows that the compromise dated 23 -1 -1965 was set aside because of the decree passed in case No. 20/65 on 26 -11 -1965. In the written statement filed on Case No. 56/64, the defendant has admitted that he has executed a Patta in favour of the present appellant and has given possession to them. But here also, it does not mention that a consideration of Rs. 200 was given by the appellant to the respondent. To the same effect is the reply filed to an application under Order 39 rules 1 and 2 CPC by Ramratan. The statement dated 29 -10 -1964, given in case No. 56/64 by Ramratan says that he has to pay Rs. 300 to Ramratan which he has taken as a loan from him. Whether he pays the loan back or not does not matter much to Ramratan, because he has executed a Patta for five years. He refers to the land in dispute as 'Zamin Nauwali' and he also admits that the possession of the appellant is which his consent.