HIRDAYA YADAV Vs. RESHMI KUER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS First Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 06.02.1985 passed by Sri Rameshwar Prasad, the learned 2nd Subordinate Judge, Arrah in title suit no.2 of 1982 decreeing the plaintiff- respondent no. 1's suit. The plaintiff-respondent no.1, Reshmi Kuer filed the aforesaid suit for cancelling and setting aside the six sale deeds, Exhibit - B/2 to B/7 on the ground that those sale deeds are fraudulent and without consideration.

(2.) ACCORDING to the plaintiffs, her husband, Ram Sakal Mahto died on 20.07.1981 and she came in possession of the property of her husband. On account of her husband's death, she lost her mental balance and was not in a position to understand her loss or gain and moreover, she was illiterate and "Pardanashin" lady and was not understanding the worldly affairs. When she felt ill, her husband's friend i.e. the defendant took her to Jagdishpur in the garb of treatment and got her L.T.I. on several plain papers. Subsequently, she came to know that the defendants had got several deeds created with respect to the suit property. Those deeds are not genuine and are without consideration. The sale deeds have been brought into existence in collusion with their own men and therefore, this suit has been filed.

(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. Yogendra Prasad Sinha No.1, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-respondent submitted that not a single cheat of paper has been produced by the defendant to show as to what amount was advanced as loan to the plaintiff's husband and on what date. Not a single witness has been examined in support of the advancement of loan. The learned counsel further submitted that it is not believable that when the husband himself was indebted heavily, the plaintiff would have performed his "Shradh" after taking loan in large extent. For the purpose of proving the loan taken by the plaintiff also, no cheat of paper has been filed by the defendant and moreover, the defendant himself has not been examined. ON these grounds, the learned counsel submitted that the First Appeal is liable to be dismissed.