HAMELO Vs. JANG SHER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff-appellant's (for brevity the plaintiff) second appeal directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Karnal dated 6-3-1980. The Addl. District Judge, Karnal in his judgment partially agreed with the findings recorded by the Sub Judge 2nd Class, Karnal on 13-2-1979. The relief claimed in the suit was that the registered sale deed dated 9-2-1976 executed by the plaintiff-appellant in favour of the defendant-respondent (for brevity 'the defendant') for a period of 99 years be declared as null and void and thus not binding on the plaintiff-appellant. As a consequence of the declaration, further relief claimed was that the plaintiff be given possession of agricultural land measuring 241 kanals, 12 marlas situated in village, Bhauji, Tehsil and District, Karnal, as described in the plaint.

(2.) The case set up by the plaintiff is that she is the owner of the suit land measuring 241 kanals, 12 marlas situated in village, Bhauji, Tehsil and District, Karnal as per Jamabandi for the year 1970-71. The defendant is her real brothers's son. The agricultural property was inherited by the plaintiff from her husband after his death. It is claimed that the plaintiff was in self cultivating possession of the afore-mentioned agricultural land till kharif 1976. Earlier to 1976, she used to give this land for cultivation to Ramjilal and Gian Singh as tenant who were her husband's brother's sons. It is further pleaded that on account of advance age she was not keeping well and became weak because of her illness. The defendant is alleged to have approached her with a request that he be given land on lease for a period of one year and she was assured of proper medical care by him and it is alleged that the defendant promised to hand over possession of the land to the plaintiff after completion of one year. It was in pursuance of this understanding that the plaintiff was asked to sign some papers at Karnal which was believed to be a lease in favour of the defendant for a period of one year. On completion of one year, the defendant was to surrender possession of the suit land and she was told for the first time that the land had been leased for 99 years and there was no question of handing over possession. After this revelation, the plaintiff obtained an attested copy of the said lease deed and she was shocked to discover that her thumb mark was obtained on a lease which, in fact, was for 99 years. The plaintiff further claimed that she was victim of a fraud, as she was illiterate, old, ill and ignorant village woman and the aforementioned lease was manipulated by the defendant with a mala fide intention of divesting her from the property. It was also alleged that nobody would lease out the land for an woefully small amount of Rs. 2,500.00 per year. In any case no amount of money was ever paid by the defendant to the plaintiff. On the basis of the aforementioned assertions the relief claimed in the suit was that the registered sale deed dated 9-2-1976 in favour of the defendant be declared null and void, hence not binding on the plaintiff. As a consequence of the declaration possession of the suit land has also been claimed.

(3.) Defendant filed written statement controverting the averments made by the plaintiff in the plaint. It was claimed that the suit was benami and the plaintiff was estopped from filing the suit by her own act and conduct. It was also claimed that the defendant had installed a tube-well in the suit land and no objection was raised by the plaintiff at that time. The allegation that the plaintiff is 70 years old or is totally illiterate and ignorant was controverted. It was also claimed that the plaintiff had no daughter. The version of the plaintiff that the defendant had approached her for taking land for a period of one year and that assurance was given by defendant to get her medically treated at Karnal has also been controverted. Defendant, however, admitted that she was a widow. The reason for leasing out the land pleaded by the defendant is that the plaintiff did not have any source of income and to generate some income the lease deed was executed. Defendant pleaded in paragraph 5 of the written statement that the plaintiff-appellant did not accept the lease money from the defendant. However, no date is given when the lease money was offered or refused. On the basis of the lease deed even mutation has been sanctioned and the plaintiff executed a power of attorney in favour of one Babu Ram for getting the mutation sanctioned.