ASHOK KUMAR Vs. VEENA WALIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present appeal has been directed against concurrent findings recorded by the courts below whereby challenge to sale deed dated 10.8.2005 being without consideration and result of fraud has been dismissed by the trial court and findings recorded by the trial court have been affirmed in appeal.

(2.) Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the sale deed in question was procured by Smt. Veena Walia, respondent No. 1 with the help of Nathi Ram, respondent No. 2 as Nathi Ram had been helping Kanwar Singh, executant of the sale deed in his follow up treatment as Kanwar Singh was suffering from throat cancer and operated upon in Medical College, Mullana where he remained admitted for one and a half month. It is further argued that as per endorsement qua registration of the sale deed, no amount was paid by defendant No. 1 to Kanwar Singh in the presence of the registering authority, sufficient to establish plea of the plaintiffs that the sale is without consideration and has been prepared by taking advantage of feeble condition of the executant because of cancer in the last days of his life.

(3.) Counsel representing the respondents has submitted that though the suit appears to have been filed by Kanwar Singh as well but as a matter of fact, Kanwar Singh neither executed any vakalatnama in favour of the Advocate who instituted the suit nor gave any attorney to Ashok Kumar to institute the suit on his behalf. The application filed by Ashok Kumar under Order 32, Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking permission to file the suit on behalf of plaintiff (Kanwar Singh) being his guardian/next friend was never allowed by the Court nor any such fact was proved that Kanwar Singh was suffering from any such disability to entitle Ashok Kumar to file the suit on behalf of Kanwar Singh or pursue the litigation on his behalf. It is further argued that as Kanwar Singh did not institute a suit to challenge the sale deed in question though he remained alive till 30.7.2006, no such plea raised by the appellant that the sale deed is either without consideration or is the result of fraud is tenable much less by way of interference in consistent findings recorded by the courts below.