BHAGWAN DASS Vs. SAROJ DEVI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Bhagwan Dass-petitioner/plaintiff has filed this civil revision petition against respondents/defendants Saroj Devi etc. under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 19.5.2014 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pataudi, whereby the application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. filed on behalf of respondents-defendants has been allowed without considering the law applicable on the present case and the plaint has been rejected. I have heard leaned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record.

(2.) From the record, I find that Bhagwan Dass-plaintiff filed the suit against Saroj Devi etc.-defendants in which it was prayed that a decree of declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is not a party to the fraud committed by defendants No.1 to 6 in execution of the fraudulent sale deed bearing Vasika No.2536 dated 26.9.2007 and its mutation and the defendants are guilty of playing fraud in procuring the signatures of the plaintiff on the said sale deed, which has no sanctity in the eyes of law may be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against defendants No.1 to 6 and an FIR may also be registered at the instance of this Court against the said defendants/respondents.

(3.) As per averments stated in the plaint, copy of which is Annexure-P.1, on 26.9.2007, defendants No.4 to 6 approached the plaintiff and represented him that they are buying some land situated in Village Farrukh Nagar in the names of defendants No.1 to 3 and they further asked him to witness the proposed sale deed. As defendants were in close relations with the plaintiff, therefore, he has no reason to disbelieve the representation made by defendants No.4 to 6 to the Tehsil compound Farrukh Nagar and a sale deed drafted on the stamp papers without any seal/stamp of Sub-Registrar and even no signatures of other witnesses and parties were present, was handed over by Shri Sandeep Yadav,Advocate, who was acting as a scribe of the said sale deed. Thereafter, photograph of the plaintiff was also affixed on the said sale deed. Although, the plaintiff also raised a question to defendants No.4 to 6, at that time, regarding the absence of other witnesses and owner of the land, but all the defendants made assurance to him that the transaction was legal and correct and they further assured him that he need not worry about the transaction.