PRAHLAD Vs. LADDEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 31-5-2006 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track), No. 4, Tonk whereby the learned Judge has decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff-respondents and has cancelled the sale deed dated 6-5-2003 executed by the defendant No. 1 in favour of the defendant No. 2 and has restrained the defendants from alienating the disputed land by way of permanent injunction. For the sake of brevity, the original defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in the suit, shall be referred to as 'the appellants' and the original plaintiff-respondent Nos. 1 to 8 in the suit, shall be referred to as 'the respondents'.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the respondent Nos. 1 to 8 are the legal heirs of Late Milap Chand Jain. Mr. Milap Chand Jain was having an agriculture land, bearing Khasra No. 296/2/2, measuring six bighas and eight biswas, situated at Village Mohammedpura, Tehsil Tonk, Mr. Jain executed a power of attorney in favour of the appellant No. 1 on or about 28-5-1997 in regard to the aforementioned land. Admittedly, Mr. Jain died on 21-10-1997. However, despite his death on 21-10-1997, the appellant No. 1 executed a sale deed in favour of the appellant No. 2, who happens to be his wife on 6-5-2003. Since the respondents were aggrieved by the said sale deed, they filed a civil suit for cancellation of the sale deed and prayed for permanent injunction against the appellants.

(3.) The appellants filed their written statements and denied all the averments made in the plaint. According to the appellants. Mr. Jain had executed the power of attorney on 28-5-1997. The appellant further claims that on 28-5-1997 Mr. Jain had also entered into an agreement to sell with regard to the disputed land. He had also received a sale consideration of Rs. 1 lac from the appellant No. 1. Since he had received a sale consideration, the possession of the land was also given to the appellant No. 1. The appellants further claim that they were not aware of Mr. Jain's death. It was further pleaded that on 6-5-2003 the appellant No. 1 had executed the sale deed in favour of the appellant No. 2 in a bona fide manner. Therefore, the sale by the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 was legal and valid.