HEM SINGH Vs. SHAKUNTLA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree passed by learned Additional District Judge Mandi in Civil Appeal No. 112 of 1997 titled Hem Singh deceased through his legal representatives Kashmir Singh and others vs. Shakuntla Devi decided on 21st December 2002 and against judgment and decree passed by learned Civil Judge 1st Class Jogindernagar District Mandi announced in Civil Suit No. 133 of 1994 titled Sidhu deceased through his legal representatives vs. Shakuntla Devi.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that deceased Sidhu plaintiff filed suit for declaration with consequential relief of prohibitory injunction pleading therein that plaintiff executed a sale deed of 1/3rd share of land comprised in Khewat No. 36 Khatuani No. 41 Kita 31 measuring 29 -4 -8 bighas situated in village Shingar/576 III Drangsira Tehsil Jogindernagar District Mandi H.P. It is pleaded that sale deed was executed by the defendant in fraudulent manner and it is further pleaded that sale deed is void and it is further pleaded that consent of plaintiff was obtained through fraud. It is further pleaded that defendant Smt. Shakuntla Devi is daughter of deceased plaintiff Sidhu and deceased plaintiff was an old man of 85 years and was illiterate. It is also pleaded that defendant promised to serve the deceased plaintiff in case Will was executed in her favour and it is further pleaded that defendant brought the plaintiff to Padhar where defendant got executed a sale deed on dated 11.8.1993 in her favour. It is further pleaded that for some time defendant served the plaintiff but thereafter left the plaintiff. It is further pleaded that plaintiff agreed for execution of Will but fraudulently sale deed was got executed by the defendant. It is further pleaded that there was no transfer of property in a voluntary manner and no sale consideration of Rs. 7000/ - was received by the plaintiff. It is further pleaded that there was no delivery of possession to defendant and possession continued to be with the plaintiff. Prayer for decree the suit as mentioned in relief clause of plaint sought.

(3.) PLAINTIFF filed replication and re -asserted the allegations as pleaded in the plaint. On the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed by learned trial Court: -