(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant-defendant against the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Una, in Civil Appeal No. 88 of 2003 dated 02.08.2004, vide which, learned Appellate Court allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Court No.2, Una, in Civil Suit No. 177 of 1995 dated 18.08.2003.
(2.) This appeal was admitted on 16.11.2004 on the following substantial questions of law:
(3.) Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this case are that plaintiff Sita Devi filed a suit for declaration to the effect that she was owner in possession of the suit land and the alleged fake sale deed No. 275, purported to have been executed on 10.03.1995 and registered on 14.03.1995 in favour of the defendants by her, was a result of fraud, undue influence, misrepresentation, without consideration, null and void and was inoperative having no effect on the right, title or interest of the plaintiff as owner in possession of the suit land. She also prayed for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in the suit land in any manner, claiming any right, title or interest therein, taking forcible possession, alienating in any manner, raising any sort of construction etc. over the suit property. In the alternative, she prayed for decree of possession thereof. According to the plaintiff, she was an old, infirm and simpleton lady, aged about 50 years and was illiterate and rustic, residing in her parental house in the village Basal, Tehsil and District Una and she had succeeded property of her father alongwith mother. It was further her case that land measuring 0-23-02 being 6/43 share of total land, measuring 1-65-01 comprised in Khewat No. 98, Khatauni No. 134 to 138, Qita 20, as entered in Misal Hakiyat Bandobast Jadid Sani for the year 1987-88, situated in up Mohal Galua, Mohal Basal, Tehsil and District Una, was owned and possessed by the plaintiff alongwith other co-sharers and the defendants had got not right, title or interest in the suit property. According to her, defendant No. 1 used to visit plaintiff at her house at village Basal and he used to assure her that he will help her in tracing her missing husband. According to her, defendant No. 1 visited her house in the 1st week of March, 1995 and told her that since her husband was missing for a period of more than 12 years, she was required to accompany him to Una to move necessary applications for the purpose of advertisement as well as for getting financial help from the government. Plaintiff was allured and on 10.03.1995, without doubting the integrity of the defendant No. 1 and considering his sympathetic approach, she accompanied defendant No. 1 to Una and on 10.03.1995, she put her thumb impression on certain papers and registers at the instance of defendant No. 1, purported to be the papers required for publication material for tracing her missing husband. As per the plaintiff, she never intended to execute any other document other than the documents required for advertisement for tracing her missing husband. It was further her case that after getting executed the alleged papers in connivance with the Deed Writer, she was again allured by the defendants to accompany them on 14.03.1995 to Una under the pretext of preparing application for getting financial assistance like pension etc. and plaintiff again, without doubting the integrity of the defendants, put her thumb impression on certain papers and register. Thus, as per plaintiff, she never executed any sale deed and alleged sale deed was fake, fictitious, illegal and result of fraud, undue influence, misrepresentation, and the same was null and void. According to her, on the basis of fake sale deed, defendants were threatening since a week from the filing of the suit and also to alienate the same. According to the plaintiff, the factum of the execution of the sale deed was disclosed to her by defendant No. 1 and on these bases, she filed the suit.