MANGEJA Vs. PYARE LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt. Mangeja widow of Birda resident of Village Berli Khurd, Tehsil and District Rewari brought a suit challenging the sale deed dated October 27, 1997 and the mutation sanctioned on the basis of sale deed and for a declaration that the sale deed has been obtained secretly by misrepresentation and fraud committed upon her by producing someone else impersonating as the plaintiff before the office of Sub Registrar at the time of registration of the sale deed.

(2.) Her case was that she never sold her land; there was no necessity for her to sell the land; she never appeared before the office of Sub Registrar and the entire proceedings are vitiated by fraud; the mutation was sanctioned in connivance with the revenue officials. She never knew of the sale deed and the mutation entered on October 25, 1999 till April 10, 2001 when she applied for and got copies of the mutation from the Patwari. When the defendant came to take possession of the suit land it was only then she came to know of the misdeed. She requested the defendant to treat the sale deed and mutation as cancelled which he refused to do so on July 15, 2001. Hence, the suit was brought in the civil court before the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Rewari.

(3.) On notice issued on the suit, the defendant vendee appeared and contested the case by filing written statement. The defendant pleaded that Mahabir Singh, son of the plaintiff, on the basis of a General Power of Attorney executed by the plaintiff in favour of her son on April 19, 1995 sold the land to him on the basis of this attorney and that is how the sale deed was executed. Meaning thereby, Smt. Mangeja's son Mahabir Singh under the authority of the GPA executed the sale deed in favour of the defendant. The General Power of Attorney was registered on April 19, 1995. The sale was in October 1997. He pleaded that suit property was purchased with the consent of the plaintiff and she had full knowledge of the sale of her property by her son. The entire sale consideration was paid to the plaintiff at her residence. The plea of fraud and misrepresentation was denied. Possession was delivered on the spot and, therefore, the question of issuance of permanent injunction against the defendant was misconceived as he was in possession of the land under a sale deed. The suit was brought after a period of four years of the sale deed on July 21, 2001.