CHANDRAKALO KUER Vs. BISHWANATH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal by the Plaintiff arises out of a suit filed by her for declaration that the sale deed dated 6 -9 -1961 alleged to have been executed by her in favour of defendant No. 1 in respect of 20 decimals of Plot No 1096 Khata No. 172 of village Again on is fraudulent, void and without consideration and that no title under it was conveyed to the defendant. Another prayer made was for confirmation of possession or in the alternative for recovery of possession and for permanently restraining the defendant from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land and from withdrawing the sale deed from the registration office.

(2.) The relevant fact for the disposal of this appeal is that the plaintiff had 20 decimals of land and on 4 -9 -1961 she executed a deed of Rehan in respect of the aforesaid land in favour of Sheodheyan Singh for Rs. 1500/ -Since Sheodheyan Singh did not have licence under the Money Lenders Act, he asked the plaintiff to execute a sale deed with respect to the land. The plaintiff did not agree this. Thereafter, he asked her to to execute a sale deed in respect of other land. Upon his insistence, she agreed to execute a sale deed with respect to 5 kathas of land of Plot No. 4 appertaining to Khata No. 52 of village Again for a consideration of Rs. 900/ -. It was further agree that on execution of the sale deed, the aforesaid Rehan deed, which had already been executed in his favour will be cancelled. Under the belief that she was executing the sale deed with respect to 5 kathas of the aforesaid land she admitted the execution of the sale deed with respect to the suit land, but when it transpired that a fraud had been committed, the plaintiff went to the District Sub -registrar and told him that a fraud had been committed by the defendant. The result was that the sale deed was not registered. It is further said that defendant No. 1 thereafter filed an application for compulsory registration and an order was passed in his favour on 7 -2 -1963. Hence this suit.

(3.) The allegations were denied in the written statement filed by the defendant. It was said that no fraud was committed on the plaintiff and that she executed the sale deed after fully understanding its contents. The trial court decreed the suit holding that the plaintiff was subjected to fraud and that she put her thumb impression on the sale deed under the impression that she Was executing the deed in respect of 5 kathas of land appertaining to plot No. 4. An appeal was preferred by the defendant which was allowed after reversing the findings recorded by the trial court. Thereafter, this second appeal has been filed.