SHIVAMMA Vs. ABDUR RAHMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a plaintiff's second appeal which arises out of a suit filed on her behalf for a declaration of title, possession of the land, cancellation of the sale -deed, and for mesne profits. It is alleged in the plaint that Plaintiff is the owner of the suit property, Plaintiff is blind and she could not cultivate the suit land. The Defendant told the Plaintiff that if she would execute an 'Ekrarnama' in his favour stating, that after her death the Defendant would be entitled to the suit property, Defendant would maintain her till her lifetime. Relying on the statement of the Defendant, the Plaintiff agreed to execute an 'Ekrarnama' in favour of the Defendant. Accordingly, the Defendant took her to Sangareddy and took her signature on some papers. After the execution of the 'Ekrarnama' Defendant did not maintain the Plaintiff. Suspecting the Defendant, the Plaintiff started making enquiries and on her enquiry, it appeared that the Defendant taking advantage of the blindness of the Plaintiff got a sale -deed executed in his favour duly registered instead of an Ekrarnama. As the Defendant has got the sale -deed executed in his favour by practising fraud, Plaintiff is entitled to a decree.

(2.) DEFENDANT in his written statement admitted that Plaintiff is blind, and alleged that it is not correct that the Defendant got the sale -deed executed in his favour by practising fraud on her, but stated that as the Plaintiff wanted some money to start business, she came and pressed the Defendant to purchase the property. Defendant agreed but as the sale -deed could not be executed without the permission of the Taluqdar, proceedings had to be taken, so the Plaintiff first executed a mortgage deed, having received Rs. 600/ - and later executed the sale -deed. It was further stated that after the sale, the Defendant has constructed a house and has spent sufficient money on the property. A legal objection also was raised that the suit is time -barred. On these pleadings, the trial court framed certain issues. Parties led evidence. The trial court, on a consideration of the evidence, dismissed the Plaintiff's suit, having held that Plaintiff has failed to establish fraud. This judgment was affirmed in appeal. Hence this second appeal on behalf of the Plaintiff.

(3.) ON behalf of the other side it is urged that the evidence produced on behalf of the Plaintiff is not sufficient to establish fraud. The only crucial point in this case is whether fraud as alleged by the Plaintiff is proved. Plaintiff has produced four witnesses including herself. Plaintiff in her oral testimony has stated that Defendant had promised to maintain her and in lieu of that had asked her to execute an Ekrarnama'; relying on his statement she agreed to execute an 'Ekrarnama but to her surprise she found that taking advantage of her blindness, instead of executing an 'Ekrarnama' he got a sale -deed registered. She denies having received any money.