SATNAM SINGH AND ORS. Vs. JAGTAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANT -appellant -Satnam Singh and Navjit Kaur have directed the present appeal against the judgment and decree dated 21.01.2015 passed by Mrs. Jatender Walia, learned Additional District Judge, Fazilka vide which the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 20.03.2014 passed by Shri Kulbhushan Kumar, learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fazilka, was accepted and suit of the plaintiff was decreed.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is an indigent person who is not possessed sufficient means to pay a court fee livable on the above plaint and as such is filing the present suit as an indigent person. It is alleged that plaintiff is the owner in possession of the land measuring 14 kanals one marla as detailed in the plaint. Sons of the plaintiff are illiterate and are earning their bread and butter by working in the fields of the other land owners as agricultural labourer. Defendant No. 1 developed good relations with the plaintiff by continuously providing him intoxicants for a couple of year at low cost and on credit so the plaintiff started reposing confidence in defendant No. 1 and his wife Smt. Navjeet Kaur i.e. defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 1 took undue advantage of the above situation and allured the plaintiff to obtain loan against the security of the suit land as low rate for meeting the expenditure of intoxicants. The plaintiff believed the version of the defendant No. 1 and signed wherever the defendant No. 1 required for the purpose of getting sanctioned a loan of Rs. 25,000/ -. The plaintiff did all this in good faith without doubting the intentions of the defendant No. 1 who was the son of his real brother and a well rather only qualified person in the family. A couple of months ago when the defendant No. 1 stopped supplying intoxicants to the plaintiff his attitude towards the plaintiff changed, the plaintiff asked him to give him the balance amount of loan but the defendant No. 1 did not tell that the same stood spent and as such it is not possible for him to supply the intoxicants to the plaintiff any more but refused to give the details of the expenses incurred by him from loan amount. Plaintiff got suspicious and contacted the circle revenue patwari and was struck with a surprise to know that land belonging to the plaintiff has been fictitiously sold by defendant No. 1 in the name of defendant No. 2 on 09.11.2005 and upon an inquiry came to know that the defendant No. 1 on account of the illiteracy of the plaintiff and the confidence reposed by the plaintiff in defendant No. 1 managed to get prepared a document purporting to be a power of attorney in the name of the plaintiff empowering himself to sell his property i.e. the suit land. The suit land is the only property and source of the income of the plaintiff. The plaintiff had no reason or necessity to sell the suit land nor ever asked the defendant No. 1 for the same. The authority to sell the land in dispute was got incorporated by the defendant No. 1, in the alleged general power of attorney without the knowledge of the plaintiff in connivance with the scribe and witnesses. The sale is the result of fraud played upon defendant No. 1 by the plaintiff and being without any consideration is illegal, null and void ab initio. There was no reason for the plaintiff to have appointed defendant No. 2 as his attorney for the sale of the land in question because the plaintiff very much walk and travel himself for said purpose. The sale deed in question was nominally got executed/registered by defendant No. 1 in favour of his wife i.e. defendant No. 2 at the value which is much lower than its market value without the payment of any price to the plaintiff. Moreover, the possession of the land was and continues with the plaintiff till date, who is peacefully cultivating the same at the spot even now. The sale deed in question is, therefore, liable to be set aside/cancelled for all intents and purposes. The defendants were repeatedly requested to admit the invalidity of the sale deed in question, get it cancelled but they refused to do so. Hence, the present suit.

(3.) SEPARATE replications were filed, controverting the allegations of the written statements. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court: - -