CHALTI DEVI Vs. BHUPINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant regular second appeal has been filed by the appellant-plaintiff seeking to challenge the judgment and decree dtd. 30/10/2017 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rajpura whereby the suit of the appellant-plaintiff has been dismissed as well as the judgment and decree dtd. 12/9/2018 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Patiala whereby, the appeal filed by the appellant-plaintiff has also been dismissed.

(2.) In brief, the facts of the case as stated are that, the appellant- plaintiff filed a suit seeking declaration to the effect that sale deed dtd. 14/7/2003 in respect of 08 bigha 2 biswa land situated in Village Badoli Gujran, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala and sale deed 14/7/2003 in respect of 01 bigha 14 biswa land situated in Village Jhakhran, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala (details as provided in the headnote of the plaint), both got executed by respondents No.1 and 2/defendants No.1 and 2 in their favour in connivance with deed writer and marginal witnesses from the appellant- plaintiff Chalti Devi w/o Bachan Ram are result of fraud and misrepresentation and are liable to be set aside being without sale consideration and not effective on the rights of the plaintiff. It is averred that plaintiff Chalti Devi was owner in possession of the suit land situated in Village Jakhran and Badoli Gujran, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala and respondents No.1 and 2/defendants No.1 and 2 approached the plaintiff to sell the said lands to them. As such, the appellant-plaintiff entered into an agreement to sell dtd. 12/7/2003 with them and respondent No.1/ defendant No.1 issued cheque for a sum of Rs.50,000.00 in favour of the appellant-plaintiff. The appellant-plaintiff also entered into an agreement to sell dtd. 11/9/2000 with them for a total consideration of Rs.10,00,000.00 in respect of the land situated at Village Badoli Gujran and date for registration and execution of sale deed was fixed as 30/6/2003. It was averred that a sum of Rs.1,60,000.00 was paid to plaintiff as earnest money. It was alleged that one Mangat Ram son of Sant Ram had started litigation with the appellant-plaintiff and then respondents No.1 and 2/defendants No.1 and 2 on the pretext that they will contest the said litigation, got thumb impression of the plaintiff and her brother on some blank papers, stamp papers and on agreement to sell dtd. 11/9/2000 and respondent No.1/defendant No.1 got executed power of attorney dtd. 18/7/2003 from the appellant-plaintiff in the name of Manjit Singh s/o Gurnam Singh, which power of attorney was later on got cancelled by the appellant- plaintiff. It was submitted that respondent No.1/defendant No.1 issued a post dated cheque of Rs.2,90,000.00 but on presentation, the same was dishonoured due to Insufficient Funds and thereafter, it was again presented on the request of respondent No.1/defendant No.1, but it was again dishonoured because of Insufficient Funds. When the appellant-plaintiff requested respondents No.1 and 2/defendants No.1 and 2 to make the payment, they refused to make the payment of balance sale considerations, while threatening the appellant-plaintiff that they were having thumb impression of the appellant-plaintiff on the back of agreement to sell dtd. 11/7/2003 and on other blank papers and they shall use the same in their favour.

(3.) Thereafter, the appellant-plaintiff came to know that respondents No.1 and 2/defendants No.1 and 2 got executed two sale deeds in their favour in connivance with the deed writer and the marginal witnesses. It was pointed out that there was one recital in agreement that in case cheques did not clear/honour, then it will be treated as cancelled and as the cheques issued by respondent No.1/defendant No.1 has been dishonoured, therefore, the deed is cancelled and both the sale deeds dtd. 14/7/2003 are liable to be set aside, being result of fraud and misrepresentation of facts. It was further averred that respondents No.1 and 2/defendants No.1 and 2 with a view to cause irreparable loss to the appellant-plaintiff, had executed sale deed in favour of respondents No.3 and 4/defendants No.3 and 4. Hence, this suit.