LAXMAN Vs. HRTC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned Ad hoc Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court IV), Bhubaneswar in R.F.A. No.05 of 2004. The respondent as the plaintiff had filed the suit numbered as O.S. No.322 of 2000 (O.S. No.53 of 1991) for setting aside the sale deed dated 11.05.1988 and for permanent injunction. The suit having been dismissed by the trial court the unsuccessful plaintiff had carried the appeal. The lower appellate court has allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. The impugned sale deed has been declared to be illegal, void and not binding on the plaintiff-respondent; ex-consequenti, his right, title and interest have been declared. It may be stated here that the original defendant having died during suit, the present appellants were substituted in his place as his legal representatives in the trial court, and they having lost the legal battle in the lower appellate court, are now the appellants here.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, in order to bring in clarity and avoid confusion, the parties hereinafter have been referred to as they have been arraigned in the trial court.

(3.) The case of the plaintiff is that he had purchased the suit land in the year 1974 and has been residing thereon by remodelling his double storied building. It is stated that the natural born son of the plaintiff was not pulling on well with him for which he was residing at Berhampur and on 29.01.1988 the plaintiff's wife passed away. The plaintiff was allotted with a shop room in the railway market at Khurda road and he was running his business there. A notice was issued to him to cancel the said lease hold plot on the false allegation that there has been encroachment at his end concerning the immovable properties. Then serious disturbance was going on in the family and a dispute among the family members of the plaintiff was pending in High Court. Thus, the plaintiff was under terrible mental pressure as being tortured due to above. When such was the state of affair in the month of May, 1988, he fell ill. It is alleged that taking advantage of all these situations, the defendant no.1 in the garb of getting a power of attorney executed in his favour to look after the matters of the plaintiff; in connivance with the scribe and other witnesses created a sale deed and got it executed in respect of the suit land. The said sale deed is said to be the outcome of manipulation. The plaintiff never intended to sale the suit property to the defendant and he at that point of time was even aware of it. It is stated that the plaintiff believing that he and the defendant had gone to the Sub-Registrar for execution of a deed of power of attorney as it was so necessary then in the described situation had done everything. However, it was taken undue advantage of by the defendant, who managed to obtain the sale deed in respect of the suit land showing it to have been sold for a megre consideration of Rs. 4,000.00 when the market price of the suit land at that relevant point of time was Rs. 1,00,000.00 at the minimum. The plaintiff asserts that he was never aware of the nature of the said deed as sale deed nor its contents were ever read over and explained to him and in fact, he was then not in a fit state of mind. He under good faith just put his signatures at the places indicated in the deed and as desired by the scribe, who had also connived with the defendants. On a fine morning when the defendant threatened to dispossess the plaintiff advancing his right, title and possession based on the sale deed purported to have been executed by him in favour of the defendant, it was to the utter surprise of the plaintiff. So, he obtained the certified copy of the sale deed and found to his astonishment as to how fraud was practised upon him and the situations which were then prevailing have been taken undue advantage of. It is also stated that the plaintiff had absolutely no necessity to execute the said sale deed. So, he filed the suit claiming the reliefs as already stated.