LAWS(PAT)-2002-3-79

CHITERDEO SINGH Vs. HIRDAYANARAYAN SINGH

Decided On March 11, 2002
Chiterdeo Singh Appellant
V/S
Hirdayanarayan Singh Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27.2.86 passed by Additional Sub Judge, 5th, Patna, in title appeal no. 44/82/34/85 confirming the judgment dated 13.4.82 passed by Munsif, 2nd, Patna, in title suit no. 95/70. The defendant 1st party of that suit is the appellant here.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff -respondents was that defendant no. 2, the husband of plaintiff no. 2, Smt. Sonpati Devi, was an addict of ganja and he was of low intelligence. Plaintiff no. 2, Sonpati Devi, was receiving monetary help from her paternal family and, so, she purchased several lands and the suit land was purchased by her in the name of her husband. However, defendant no. 1, the appellant, obtained a sale -deed dated 17.3.67 from defendant no. 2 without payment of any consideration money and after putting him under his undue influence. Plaintiff no. 1 was minor on the date of execution of the aforesaid sale -deed. So, when he became major, he along with his mother filed the suit for declaration that the sale -deeddated 1 was invalid for want of payment of consideration.

(3.) THE trial court dismissed the suit holding that the evidence regarding consideration money was contradictory and it was beyond the pleading of the defendant - appellant. Moreover, the husband of plaintiff no. 2 was illiterate and on the date of execution of the sale -deed, defendant no. 1 (appellant) had also executed a deed of ladabi for the same land which was under dispute. So, the chance of the appellant obtaining a fake sale -deed from the husband of plaintiff no. 2 was very much there. The suit was filed in the year 1970 when plaintiff no. 1 became major and, therefore, the suit was not barred by limitation. The trial court also held that since the evidence of the parties established that the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit land, the suit was also not barred Specific Relief Act. The appellate court concurred with all the findings of the trial court and maintained the judgment and decree passed by the latter.