SUKHDEV SINGH Vs. SMT. KASHMIR DEVI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this regular second appeal is the judgment and decree dated 19.11.1987 passed by Shri R.M.Gupta, Additional District Judge, Ropar vide which the appeal preferred by the plaintiff/appellant against the judgment and decree dated 26.10.1983 passed by Shri N.C.Prashar, Sub Judge 1st Class, Anandpur Sahib was accepted and suit of the plaintiff for declaration was decreed.

(2.) Briefly stated Dilbag Devi, original plaintiff, filed suit for declaration that she is owner in possession of the land measuring 4 kanals 11 marlas situated in village Humbewal fully described in the heading of the plaint and that the sale dated 5.7.1977 purporting to have been executed by the deceased Dilbag Devi in favour of Sukhdev Singh and Jaspal Singh defendants is illegal void and ineffective and has been procured by misrepresentation, fraud etc.

(3.) Plaintiff has alleged that defendant No.l came to village of plaintiff Dilbag Devi at Bathu on 4.7.1977 and represented that the lessees of Khasra No.488 of village Humbewal wanted to purchase four marlas of land out of that khasra numb-, which was in their possession and advised the plaintiff to sell that land to the lessees at the rate of INR 400.00 per maria. A sum of INR IOOO/- was paid to the plaintiff as part payment at village Bathu and she was asked to go with him to Anandpur Sahib where the intended purchasers were waiting for her. The lessee did not turn up at Anandpur Sahib. Sukhdev Singh defendant No.l said that he himself would purchase the land and accordingly he purchased the stamp papers, sale deed was then drafted thereon and on the next day Kashmir Singh of village Bathu came to Anandpur Sahib and he was made an attesting witness due to his sudden presence. A sum of INR 600/ - was allegedly paid to the plaintiff in the office of the Sub Register and the thumb impression of the plaintiff was obtained without reading over or explaining the document to the plaintiff. Ram Rakha Mai, Document Writer, who drafted the document was found to be a forger and was standing trial for fabricating a false Will. The impugned sale deed dated 5.7.1977 is the result of fraud and misrepresentation exercised by the defendant upon the deceased plaintiff and for that reason is void abinitio is without consideration inequitable and unjust because the value of the property in dispute is more than INR 35,000.00.