MURAT RAM Vs. BHADAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This regular second appeal has been preferred by the appellant/defendant against judgment and decree dated 11.3.2002 passed in Civil Appeal No. 103 of 2000 by learned District Judge, Kullu, H.P. whereby he reversed the judgment and decree dated 29.9.2001 passed by learned Senior Sub Judge, Kullu, H.P. in Civil Suit No. 36 of 1995.

(2.) The original plaintiff Smt. Baldassi was the real sister of defendant Keshav Ram and instituted the suit claiming herself to be coowner in possession of the suit land as detailed in paras 1 to 4 of the head note of the plaint and was further mortgagee in possession of the land as had been mentioned in para No.5 of the head note of the plaint to the extent of her recorded share. She assailed the release deed dated 25.11.1992 qua the suit land as being void, fictitious, illegal and the mutations No. 4159 and 1137 were also sought to be declared as illegal and not binding upon her. Smt. Baldassi died during the pendency of the suit and was succeeded by her son and daughter, who were arrayed as plaintiffs. Her case was that on 10 Manghar 2049 she as a guest visited her brother defendant where she fell ill. The defendant on the pretext of providing medical help, brought her to Kullu for getting her admitted in the Kullu hospital, but he with ulterior motive to grab her property, took her to different places and obtained her thumb impressions on papers. He did not admit her in the hospital, rather took her back to her house on the ground that admission to the hospital was not advised. The plaintiff during her life time had never come to Kullu. In September, 1994 the plaintiff requested the defendant to partition the land, but he dis-owned her ownership. Then on collection of revenue records, the plaintiff came to know fraud and deception played by the defendant upon her by obtaining the release deed in his favour. The so called release deed was claimed to be an outcome of fraud and termed to be forged and fictitious and never executed by the plaintiff. It was alleged that the defendant failed to admit the claim of the plaintiff, therefore, the present suit for having her declared as co-owner in possession of the land and mortgagee in possession of the land described in para 5 of the head note of the plaint. In alternative a plea for possession was also made.

(3.) The defendant admitted the plaintiff to be his sister and was co-owner in possession of the suit land to the extent of her share, but claimed that she had relinquished her rights by executing release deed dated 25.11.1992 in his favour and had delivered the possession to him. It was alleged that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit land and the plaintiff had relinquished her right in the suit land of her free volition and Will. It was denied that the plaintiff had come to his house and had fallen ill or had been taken to Kullu for having admitted in the hospital. The defendant denied the allegations of having obtained the release deed by way of fraud, misrepresentation or obtaining her thumb impressions wrongly. Rather it was claimed by the defendant that plaintiff in presence of the witnesses of her own in a sound disposing mind had executed the document of relinquishment. Rest of the averments were stated to be wrong and accordingly denied.