MUNDARI DEVI Vs. RAMASHISH PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs assailing the judgment and decree of the appellate court below reversing the decree of the trial court in favour of the plaintiffs.

(2.) THE sole plaintiff Shripal Mahto [since deceased, through L.R.], filed a suit for declaration that the sale deed dated 24.10.1962 in favour of Shyam Sundari Devi and the gift deed dated 7.3.1964 in favour of Shyam Sundari Devi and her husband Ram Jatan Mahto, purported to have been executed by him, were forged, fabricated and void documents. It appears that after the death of the original plaintiff, during the pendency of the suit, the substituted heirs were allowed to amend the plaint by adding the relief for passing an appropriate decree for partition of the shares of the plaintiffs and also for recovery of possession over the same.

(3.) THE plaintiff Shripal Mahto accepted in the plaint that his daughter Shyam Sundari Devi and her husband (defendant no. 1) used to reside with him, and her husband used to look after his affairs including cultivation etc. It was, however, his case that during his illness, the defendant no. 1, on the pretext of getting a power of attorney executed in his favour, got executed a sale deed on 24.10.1962 with regard to the land mentioned in schedule-A of the plaint by the plaintiff in favour of Shyam Sundari Devi. It was further alleged that subsequently after a lapse of nearly two years, defendant no. 1 represented that there were some errors in the previously executed power of attorney and a fresh power of attorney was required to be executed and thereafter on that pretext, he got a gift deed executed by the plaintiff in favour of Shyam Sundari Devi as well as in his favour for the land mentioned in schedule-B of the plaint. The plaintiff specifically alleged that he executed those two deeds and admitted execution thereof before the registering authority under the impression that he had executed the deeds of power of attorney in favour of the defendant no. 1. In sequence, the plaintiff has further come out with the case that subsequently nearly after seven years he learnt about those two deeds i.e. the sale deed and the gift deed and thereafter he executed two separate cancellation deeds cancelling the sale deed and the gift deed.