JIBRAIL MIAN Vs. LALU TURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal at the instance of the defendant-appellant is directed against the impugned judgment and decree of affirmation dated 24-3-1988 and 4-4-1988 respectively passed in Title Appeal No. 47 of 1984/ 46 of 1987 by the District Judge, Gumla upholding the judgment and decree of the learned Munsif, gumal passed in Title Suit No. 37 of 1983 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs was decreed.

(2.) The plaintiffs-respondent had filed the said suit for declaration that the sale deed No. 1711 dated 18-10-1978 executed by them is void and not binding upon them having been obtained by fraud, misrepresentation and without consideration and for recovery of possession in respect of the suit land detailed in Schedule-A of the plaint situate in Village- Dumarla, Police Station-Gumla, District-Ranchi (now Gumla).

(3.) The case of the plaintiffs-respondent, in brief, is that Buddu Turi, MutariTuri and Thuia Turi, all sons of Bishun Turi stand jointly recorded in respect of Khata No. 68 in the Survey Records of Right (Ext. 5) and land under Khata No. 68 was partitioned among them and the suit plots having a total area of 3.11 acres under the said Khata fell to the Takhata allotted to Thuia Turi. who was in exclusive possession over the same. Thuia Turi died leaving behind his widow, original plain tiff-respondent No. 2. Most. Atwari Turin (since dead] and daughter, the original plaintiff-respondent No.1 Dilmohini Turin (since dead). In the year 1976 Atwari Turin had executed a registered Will in favour of her daughter Dilmohini Turin aforesaid. The plaintiffs-respondents, who are illiterate women, in the year 1978 wanted to sell only plot No. 1181 having an area of 1.11 acres of land to the defendants-appellant, who agreed to purchase the same for a sum of Rs. 4400/- and they came to Gumla on 18-10-1978 with the defendants-appellant and one Mohaddin Mian, the father of defendant-appellant No. 1 where the sale deed was prepared but the entire consideration amount was not paid to them by the defendants-appellant and also the contents of the sale deed were not read over and explained to them in their own language and they were made to understand that the sale deed is in respect of only plot No. 1181 having an area of 1.11 acres and under the said belief and also believing the bona fide of the scribe, they had executed the sale deed (Ext. 4) on 18-10-1978 in favour of defendants-appellant. It is alleged that if the plaintiffs-respondent could have known that all the suit plots are being transferred, they would not have executed the said sale deed in favour of defendants-appellant as they had never wanted to sell their entire properties nor they would have transferred their entire properties to reduce themselves to penury and the said sale deed was obtained by the defendants-appellant by playing fraud upon them and by misrepresentation and the value of the suit plots is not less than Rs. 20.000/-. The defendants appellant did not come in possession of all the plots except plot No. 1181. Subsequently, the defendants-appellant forcibly dispossessed them from all the suit plots by Virtue of an illegal order passed under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure coupled with the mutation order of the Circle Officer. It is also alleged that in spite of repeated demands defendants-appellant, though initially agreed to pay Rs. 1260/-, the balance of the consideration amount and to meet the expenses of the rectification of the sale deed dated 18-10-1978, refused to pay the rest amount of the consideration and to rectify the said sale deed fraudulently obtained by them and the sale deed is without consideration and the plaintiffs respondent having come to know of the fraud, cancelled the sale deed dated 18-10-1978 by executing a registered cancellation deed dated 17-11-1978 (Ext. 1) and also sent a registered notice (Ext.3) on 11-6-1979 through their advocate to the defendants appellant for their information and in reply to the said notice the defendants-appellant denied the title over the entire suit land of the plaintiffs-respondent.