INDAR SINGH Vs. PARMESHWARDHARI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the plaintiffs. The suit was a suit for a declaration that the plaintiffs have acquired valid title to the disputed properties by virtue of their purchase under a registered sale-deed dated the 28th April 1944. The disputed properties belonged to late Babu Mangaldhari Singh, father of defendant No. 1.

(2.) The case of the plaintiffs was that Babu Mangaldhari Singh died a year back, leaving defendant No. 1, his son, as his heir. Defendant No. 1 contracted to sell the disputed properties for Rs. 7,000 to the plaintiffs by executing a contract of sale dated the 19th April 1944, in their favour and that the plaintiffs paid Rs. 700 as an advance at that time. Subsequently, defendant No. 1 executed a sale deed in the plaintiffs' favour on the 28th April 1944. Out of the consideration of Rs. 7,000, Rs. 700 had been paid as advance, as stated above; Rs. 1,300, being the decretal dues of the plaintiffs, was set off; Rs. 4,000 was kept in deposit with the plaintiffs to be paid to Sheo Prasad Singh, the Ijaradar of the Milkiat interest of the disputed properties. The balance of Rs. 1,000 was said to have been paid in cash to defendant No. 1 at the time he executed and signed the sale-deed. The further case of the plaintiffs was that, as defendant No. 1 refused to admit the execution of the sale-deed before the Sub-Registrar, the plaintiffs had to take proceeding for compulsory registration of the sale-deed. The District Sub-Registrar ordered compulsory registration. On the date the sale-deed was registered, defendant No. 1 was present in the Sub-registry office. He snatched away the sale-deed, which was lying on the table of the Sub-Registrar, and tore it into pieces. A criminal case was started against defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 1 was ultimately acquitted. The plaintiffs applied for mutation of their names in respect of the disputed properties on the strength of their sale-deed and they came to know that defendant No. 2, the mother of defendant No. 1, was mutated for those properties. It is alleged that a cloud had been thrown on the title of the plaintiffs by the mutation of the name of defendant No. 2. The defendants had no right to the properties in suit after the execution of the sale-deed in favour of the plaintiffs which was valid, genuine and for consideration. Hence the suit by the plaintiffs.

(3.) Defendant No. 2, the mother of defendant No. 1, only contested the suit. She pleaded, inter alia, that the suit was barred under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act. Her case further was that defendant No. 1 was a congenital idiot, incapable of understanding transactions relating to transfer of properties, that he is a man of unsound mind and mostly wanders about here and there and that, on the death of her husband, Babu Mangaldhari Singh, she and not defendant No. 1, came into possession of the entire properties. The contract of sale, as alleged, was denied by her. It was further stated that defendant No. 1 had no necessity to borrow any money. It was further stated that the plaintiffs had full knowledge about the mental condition of defendant No. 1 and, taking advantage of his mental condition, the plaintiffs fraudulently got defendant No. 1 to execute the contract of sale, the sale-deed and the receipt. The whole thing was challenged as fraudulent and without consideration. The properties in dispute were worth Rs. 25,000 which had been purported to have been sold under the sale-deed. She further contended that defendant No. 1 had no title to sell the properties, and, therefore, the plaintiffs did not acquire any title to them and they also never came in possession. As defendant No. 1 is insane and idiot, he was excluded from inheritance and, as such, he had no right, title and interest to the disputed properties, and, therefore, the sale-deed in favour of the plaintiffs did not convey any title to them.