RISALA Vs. RULDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is against the findings of reversal.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the factual back-ground, as emerge from the record is that Sunehri-predecessor-in-interest of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Shanti- respondent No. 5, herein, suffered a civil decree dated October 25, 1981 in Civil Suit No. 120 of 1981, where-under the appellants herein, were declared to be owners in possession of the land in dispute on the basis of some family settlement allegedly reached between the parties. This decree came to be challenged in the suit filed by Sunehri in the Court of Sub Judge IInd Class, Jind. The suit was filed alleging fraud against the appellants, who were defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in the suit. Sunehri also impleaded Shanti her real sister as a co-defendant in the suit, though she also suffered a decree along-with Sunehri in the suit. The allegations in the plaint were briefly that she gave her land on lease for two years @ Rs. 300/- per killa per annum to defendant Nos. 1 and 2. In the garb of lease of the land, defendant Nos. 1 and 2, obtained her thumb impressions on certain documents, which resulted in the passing of fraudulent decree. It is also alleged that she never signed the written statement or power of attorney nor admitted the suit filed by defendant Nos. 1 and 2, being Civil Suit No. 120 of 1981. It was further alleged that the property is valuing more than Rs. One lac., and thus, could only be transferred by a registered instrument.

(3.) AFTER framing issues, the trial Court recorded the evidence of the witnesses. The defendants produced a receipt Ex.D3, wherein it was mentioned that the plaintiff Sunehri and defendant No. 3. Shanti received a sum of Rs. 25,000/- each in cash and kind in settling the land in favour of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 by way of family settlement. Two marginal witnesses, namely Sant Singh-DW2 and Sohlu-DW3 appeared before the trial Court and proved the execution of this receipt. The trial Court on the basis of evidence before it, also held that the plaintiffs have not been able to prove any fraud. The trial Court also relied upon the receipt Ex.D-3 to establish family settlement and payment of consideration for parting with the land. The trial Court also referred to the statement of the plaintiff before the Court and the averments made in the pleadings. Plaintiff has stated that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 approached her for giving the land in dispute on lease basis for two years and she agreed for the same and came to Jind with the defendants and executed the necessary documents. However, during the cross examination, she has stated on oath that she had come to Jind from village Kheri all alone to get some medicines from Dr. Mahavir, where defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 met her and took her to the Court where her thumb impressions were taken on certain papers.