VIDYA DEVI Vs. SHRI HEM RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellantdefendant against the judgment and decree dated 11.11.2004, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., reversing the judgment and decree dated 25.5.2000, passed by the learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Court No.1, Mandi, District Mandi, whereby the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff has been dismissed.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffrespondent (herein after referred to as the 'plaintiff'), filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the appellantdefendant (hereinafter referred to as the 'defendant') stating therein that he is joint owner in possession alongwith other co-sharers and having 1/48th share in the suit land comprised in Khata Khatauni No.488/803 to 806, Khasra Nos.220, 227, 276, 278, 281, 279, 280, Kittas 7, measuring 177.88 Sq.Meters, situated in Mauja Bhagwahan/366/4, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the suit land).

(3.) It has been averred by the plaintiff that the defendant, who is government employee and known to him since long, allured him for securing some bank loan for him so as to start some business and for that purpose she asked him to go to Tehsil Office with her for execution of some documents and under this impression he joined her and went to Tehsil Office on 20.11.1995, but on the way, she provided liquor to him and under the influence of liquor she got signed some documents from him. It has further been averred by the plaintiff that on the next day i.e. 21.11.1995, he narrated the whole story to his brother Ramesh, who went to Tehsil Office with him and made enquiries. The plaintiff has averred that he came to know from Tehsil Office that the defendant has got executed power of attorney from him qua his share in the suit land in favour of her brother Padam Nabh. The plaintiff has further averred that on 21.11.1995 itself, he got the power of attorney revoked in the presence of the defendant and her witnesses. The plaintiff has further averred that on 27.5.1996, the defendant came to his house and asked him for delivery of possession of his 1/48th share in the suit land and only then he came to know that mutation qua suit land had been sanctioned in favour of the defendant qua the suit land on 15.2.1996 as per sale deed No.358. It is further averred by the plaintiff that he had neither sold the suit land to the defendant nor had he received any consideration from her and that he had not delivered the possession of the suit land to the defendant. It is also averred by the plaintiff that his share in the suit land was already mortgaged with one Jagdish against a sum of Rs.10,000/- and, in view of this also no sale deed of the share of the plaintiff could have been executed in favour of the defendant. It is alleged by the plaintiff that neither he had received any consideration nor he had executed any sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff filed a suit in the trial Court seeking declaration that the sale deed dated 15.2.1996 and mutation attested in consequence thereof dated 3.4.1996 are wrong, illegal, null and void and not binding upon the plaintiff and the revenue entry to the contrary is also null and void with consequential relief of restraining the defendant from interfering in the suit land.