DAYA RAM (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS HET RAM AND OTHERS Vs. THAKARU RAM (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS SMT GITA DEVI & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff(s) instituted a suit against the defendants, claiming therein a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction. The suit of the plaintiff(s) stood dismissed by the learned trial Court. In an appeal carried therefrom by the plaintiff(s) before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court dismissed the appeal, whereupon, it concurred with the verdict recorded by the learned trial Court. In sequel thereto, the plaintiff(s)/appellant(s) herein is driven to institute the instant appeal herebefore.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction as against the defendant. It has been averred that the suit land comprised in khasra Nos. 53, 79, 80 and 97, measuring 24-9 bighas is in possession of the plaintiff as per the agreement executed in between the parties. It has been further averred that the defendant, who is of the age of 70 years was in need of money and he approached the plaintiff to give him a sum of Rs.70,000/- as loan which was given by the plaintiff and defendant gave possession of the suit land to the plaintiff for its cultivation and maintenance. It was alleged that an agreement was executed in between the parties on 19.03.1993 which was signed by plaintiff and thumb marked by defendant in presence of witnesses and was also attested by the Notary. It was alleged that the plaintiff was to remain in possession till the amount was repaid and as the defendant is threatening to take possession of the suit land from the plaintiff, hence, the suit filed by the plaintiff.

(3.) The defendants contested the suit and filed written statement, wherein, they have taken preliminary objections inter alia maintainability, jurisdiction, cause of action etc. On merits, it is pleaded that the plaintiff is the real son-in-law of the defendant. Defendant had accompanied the plaintiff to execute a Will at Bilaspur which was got prepared by the plaintiff and believing the document as a Will, he thumb marked the same in good faith and in case any agreement has been got executed by the plaintiff, it is the result of fraud and misrepresentation. He also pleaded that he never took any loan of Rs.70,000/- from the plaintiff nor gave the possession of the suit land to the plaintiff.