LABANYA SINGH Vs. TAPOI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff in Title Suit No. 101 of 1993 of the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Bhubaneswar is in appeal. This appeal is against the reversing judgment passed by the lower appellate Court whereby the appellant's suit for cancellation of the registered sale deed No. 8878 dated 9-8-1989 was dismissed.

(2.) The factual matrix leading to this appeal is as follows: The plaintiff-appellant is the owner and in possession of the suit land measuring an area of Ac. 0.074 decimals out of Ac. 0.110 decimals corresponding to plot No. 153, Khata No. 207 situated in mauza-Saradeipur. She is an illiterate village rustic lady. Defendant No. 2 is her son through her first husband. Defendant No. 1 is the wife of defendant No. 2. The appellant has been residing in the house of her second husband with her son Trinath. While the appellant was suffering from cataract in her eyes and she required treatment of her eye, the defendant No. 2 persuaded her to come to Bhubaneswar so that the cataract could be operated. Accordingly, the defendant No. 2, brought the appellant to Bhubaneswar and made her believe to give her statement to the Doctor before her treatment, on some papers. The defendant No. 2 taking advantage of her innocence, illiteracy and village rustic woman managed to get a sale deed registered in the name of the respondent No. 1. After some time, the appellant made a discreet inquiry from which it was ascertained that instead of a statement purported to be made before a Doctor, a sale deed was snatched by the respondent No. 2 in favour of his wife. So, she filed this suit for cancellation of the document.

(3.) The respondents have filed a joint written statement by inter alia, alleging that the appellant sold the suit land for Rs. 4,000/- as consideration in order to meet the expenses towards the legal necessity. Pursuant to the sale deed, the appellant delivered possession to the respondent No. 1 who has been in possession of the same. The trial Court after considering the evidence of both parties, was, however, inclined to decree the suit on the ground that there was no consideration paid to the appellant. It has further observed that the stamp paper was purchased for the execution of a gift deed, but under what circumstances, instead of a gift deed, a sale deed was executed in favour of the respondent No. 1 has not been explained. The appellate Court after reappraisal of the evidence was inclined to upset the findings of the trial Court on the ground that the contents of the sale deed was read over to the vendor, who after having understood the same, put her L.T.I. in token of execution of the sale deed. Since the appellate Court held the execution of the sale deed as the conscious act of the appellant, therefore, he disagreed with the observation of the trial Court and allowed the respondents' appeal.