PADMA DEVI Vs. SOMA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the respondent (here in after referred to as the 'plaintiff') filed a suit against the defendants for declaration and consequential relief of injunction. The plaintiff claimed that she was owner in possession of the suit property measuring 6 bis was situate in Phati Dhalpur, Kothi Maharaja, Tehsil and District Kullu and two storeyed house built thereon to the extent of l/3rd share.

(2.) THE undisputed facts of the case are that this property was owned by Sh. Swaru, father of the plaintiff and the plaintiff used to reside in the house situated over the suit property with her father. Sh. Swaru Ram unfortunately died. Sh. Swaru was survived by his widow Smt. Besru, the plaintiff Soma Devi and her brother and each got l/3rd share in the property. Smt. Besru expired later on and the plaintiff and her brother remained in the care and custody of Sh. Puran Chand, defendant No.1 who is their uncle. THE plaintiff got married sometime in the month of February, 1992. According to the plaintiff, she was a minor at that time but according to the defendants, she was a major but that does not have much bearing on the case.

(3.) IN the year 1997 itself, the plaintiff came to know that somebody had come to serve court summons upon her. The plaintiff thereafter met defendant No. 1 who expressed his ignorance about any case but assured the plaintiff that he would look-after the matter. The plaintiff now suspected something was amiss and she went to the Court and found out that a partition case had been filed against her and her brother by the defendant No. 1. On further enquiry, it was revealed that defendant No.1 acting as the attorney of the plaintiff had sold her 1/3rd share which worked out to 2 bis was to his wife, defendant No.2 who was the real aunt of the plaintiff and mutation No.3599 in this regard was also attested in the name of defendant No.2. Accordingly the plaintiff claimed that the defendants have played fraud on her and the defendant No. 1 had got the power of attorney executed from her by playing fraud on her and that he had executed a sale deed in favour of defendant No.2 without any consideration. The plaintiff claimed to be owner in possession of the suit property.