SAUDAGAR CHAUDHARY Vs. BIPATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant - 2nd party has moved this Court in appeal against the judgment and decree of the Court of 2nd Additional District Judge of Saran at Chapra affirming the judgment and decree of the 2nd Additional Subordinate Judge, Chapra, dismissing a suit for declaration of title over the suit land described in Schedule 2 to the plaint

(2.) Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title being Title Suit No. 61/5 of 62-65 over 3 Bighas 15 Kathas and 15 Dhurs of Kast lands as described in Schedule 2 of the plaint in village Kabirpur Tola Imrauli P.S. Majrwa in the district of Saran mow district of Siwan). Schedule 2 lands are part of the lands given under Schedule 1 to the plaintiff. There was a Title Suit No. 14/59 by the plaintiff against the defendants 1 to 7 (hereinafter to be referred as defendant-1st party) in respect of Schedule 1 lands. This suit was decreed on 28-9-1960. Defendant 1st party preferred First Appeal No. 303/60 in this Court. The plaintiff in the meanwhile started Execution Case No. 20 of 1960 and obtained delivery of possession over the entire Schedule 1 lands on 26-1-1961. Defendant-1st party, however, created some obstruction giving rise to criminal cases including one in which the plaintiffs husband and brother were made accused for the offences under Ss. 325, 324, 447, 148 and 147 of the IPC. Defendant 2 acting on behalf of all the defendants-1st party, taking advantage of the situation that the plaintiffs husband and brother were accused for committing offences, proposed to the plaintiff to execute a sale deed with respect to 3 Bighas 15 Kathas and 14 Dhurs of land in favour of defendant-1st party, agreeing in consideration thereof to stifle the prosecution and compromise the criminal case to secure acquittal. The plaintiff being a simple, illiterate and Pardanashin woman and under the fear of the criminal case against her husband and brother consented to the said proposal and accordingly an agreement was arrived at and two sale deeds were executed by the plaintiff on 30-11-1961 for an apparent consideration of Rs.2,000/- covering together 3 Bighas. 15 Kathas and 14 Dhurs of land out of Schedule 1 as described in Schedule 2. Defendant-1st party, however, allowed the criminal case to proceed, made Pairvis with due earnestness and examined the witnesses. Realising a fraud had been committed upon her, the plaintiff obtained copies of the sale deeds and when their contents were read over and explained to her, she found that many facts had been stated therein falsely including the statement about the payment of consideration of Rs.400/- She alleged that she put her thumb impression on account of undue pressure and misrepresentation that the criminal case would be withdrawn and admitted the execution of the two sale deeds before the Sub-Registrar for the purpose of their registration also under undue pressure and false hope of securing the withdrawal of the criminal case and for no other consideration. Contents of the sale deeds were not disclosed to her until after obtaining the certified copies she found, what was stated therein. She asserted that in spite of the execution of the sale deeds she did not part with the possession of the lands (Schedule 2) and alleged that since the sale deeds were executed under influence and coercion and further since they were void in view of the provision of S.23 of the Contract Act, no title over Schedule 2 lands ever demised to the defendants-1st party. Plaintiff further alleged that she could know that defendant-1st party executed separate sale deeds without any consideration with respect to various portions of Schedule 2 lands in favour of defendant 8 to 16 (described as defendants-2nd party). These sale deeds executed by the defendants-1st party in favour of the 2nd party created cloud over her title and hence on 30-8-1962 (during the pendency of criminal case) she filed the instant suit.

(3.) Contesting defendants, namely, defendants 9,10,13 and 16 of the defendants-2nd party on the other hand maintained before the learned Subordinate Judge that decree in the Title Suit No. 14 of 1959 notwithstanding, since the plaintiff agreed to sell Schedule 2 properties to the defendant-1st party on the mutually agreed terms and conditions and took advantage of the said agreement in the sense that the appeal against the judgment and decree was not pressed in the Court and witnesses spoiled their evidence in the criminal case against the husband and brother of the plaintiff, she could not question the validity of the sale deeds on the ground that the sale deeds were obtained by fraud or in pursuance of a contract opposed to public policy They also maintained that the defendants-1st party got delivery of possession from the plaintiff after the execution of the sale deeds and after executing in their turn sale deeds in favour of the defendants-2nd party. Put them in possession. Although the suit was dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge yet their case about possession was not accepted by the trial Court.