JAGMANTI Vs. RAM KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is plaintiffs' second appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court whereby appeal filed by the defendant-Ram Kumar (predecessor-in-interest) of respondents No. 1(i) to (iv) has been accepted and judgment and decree of the trial Court passed in favour of the plaintiffs has been set aside consequently dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-appellants.

(2.) AS per the averments made in the plaint, defendant No. 4-Krishan Kumar is the husband of the plaintiff-appellant No. 1 and father of plaintiff Nos. 2 to 5. Defendants No. 2 and 3 are the brothers of defendant No. 4. As per the averments made in the plaint, defendant No. 4 after his marriage with plaintiff No. 1 started residing at Sonepat to earn his livelihood. They earned the livelihood by running a small tea shop as a joint venture and later on started running a Dhaba in village Bhatana Zafrabad. Out of the joint earnings, after purchasing a plot of 6 marlas situated in village Garhi Brahman, Distt. Sonepat, both of them constructed a house thereon. About three years ago, defendant No. 4 started remaining sick and mentally disturbed, so plaintiff No. 1 was compelled to run a small tea shop on Mehlana Road, Sonepat to meet the family expenses and treatment expenses of defendant No. 4. The children were sent to the parental home of plaintiff No. 1 to arrange their education. Taking benefit of the poor and weak condition of plaintiff No. 1 and defendant No. 4, defendants No. 2 and 3 started interfering in their family life. The said defendants No. 2 and 3 who are men of bad habits, took defendant No. 4 at village Jauli to create mismanagement in his proper treatment resulting in his abnormal condition and whenever plaintiff No. 1 objected, they threatened her that house in question shall be got sold. Further, the case of the plaintiff is that defendants No. 2 and 3 took plaintiff No. 1 and the entire household articles forcibly and illegally to village Jauli along with defendant No. 4. After getting herself freed, plaintiff No. 1 reported the matter to the police at Police Post Gohana Road, Sonepat. Later on, the matter was compromised on 9.3.2000. However, plaintiff No. 1 came to know later on that it was got written in the compromise that the house in question, the plot of which is in the name of defendant No. 4, shall be sold and after satisfying the demands of money lenders, the remaining amount of sale would be deposited in the name of minor children i.e plaintiffs No. 2 to 5. It is alleged that this was a fictitious story to grab the only residential house of the poor family of plaintiff No. 1. Further taking benefit of absence of plaintiff No. 1 and under the influence of defendants No. 2 and 3, defendants No. 1 to 3 in collusion with each other got forged sale deed dated 21.3.2000 executed from defendant No. 4 in favour of defendant No. 1 whereby the house in dispute of which the market value was Rs. 5,00,000/- was shown to be sold at a throw away price of Rs. 1,00,500/-. The said amount was usurped by defendants No. 2 and 3 alone and they did not bother to give a single penny either to plaintiff No. 1 or defendant No. 4. On 28.3.2000, defendant No. 4 was sent to the parental home of plaintiff No. 1 in a miserable condition and after getting him treated, it was transpired that how defendants No. 2 and 3 have got transferred the house of plaintiff No. 1 in the name of defendant No. 1 under coercion, threat, influence and by playing a fraud. It is further alleged that defendant No. 1 is now engaged in demolishing/changing the nature of the suit house. Requests made to him to deliver back the possession of the house to plaintiff No. 1 went unheeded

(3.) DEFENDANT No. 1 in his written statement raised certain preliminary objections. On merits, he submitted that he purchased the house in dispute for Rs. 1,00,500/- which was the market value prevailing at the time of execution of the sale deed. He denied the facts relating to family affairs of plaintiffs and defendants No. 2 to 4 for want of knowledge. It is further pleaded that husband of plaintiff No. 1 was absolute owner of the house in dispute and so had every right to alienate the same and that he sold the same for consideration which was duly paid. He denied allegations of any fraud, threat or undue influence etc. It is also submitted that defendant No. 1 has since expired on 21.4.2000 and after his death, his LRs are now using the house in dispute and that plaintiffs have no concern with the same. With this stand and controverting all other material averments of the plaintiff, defendant No. 1 (through his LRs) prayed for dismissal of the suit.