BHUTKA RABIDAS Vs. SARASWATI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal at the instance of the plaintiff -appellant has been preferred against the impugned judgment of reversal and decree dated 9.1.1990 and 17.1.1990 respectively passed in Title Appeal No. 41 of 1988 by Shri Sheo Kumar Prasad Verma, 7th Additional District Judge, Dhanbad whereby and whereunder the judgment and decree of the trial Court passed in Title Suit No. 155 of 1980, 21 of 1987 was set aside and the suit of the plaintiff -appellant has been dismissed.

(2.) THE original plaintiff had filed the said suit for declaration that the sale deed dated 13.6.1979 is a fraudulent document and it has never been executed by him and the same has not affected his title in any portion of the house premises described in the schedule of the plaint. The original plaintiff Budh Ram died during the pendency of the suit and his son stands substituted in his place.

(3.) 7.1979 said Chandrika Kumar came to his house in the company of some persons and threatened the plaintiff to vacate the suit premises and he along with the defendant with the help of the aforesaid persons forcibly broke open the lock of one room and threw all the belongings of the plaintiff and kept therein their cot and other articles and this plaintiff filed a petition before the Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Dhanbad and a preceding under Sec.107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was initiated and in the show cause in the said proceeding, the defendant disclosed that a portion of the suit premises in question measuring 1 kattha 3 chatak and 7 sq. f. was purchased by the defendant by virtue of a registered sale deed executed by the plaintiff after obtaining necessary permission of the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, The further case of the plaintiff is that he has never applied for permission before the Deputy Commissioner for the sale of the suit premises nor has appeared before him at any point of time nor he had any occasion for the same and the defendant and her husband had used the blank papers containing his LTI for taking permission of sale from the Deputy Commissioner. It is also alleged that he has never executed any sale deed nor presented the same before the registering authority and no consideration money was paid to him by the defendant Nand Gopal Sah Versus State Of Jharkhand and everything was done by the defendant by setting up a man to put thumb impression on all the documents including the registers of the Sub -Registrar Office and the plaintiff made a prayer in MP Case No. 1147 of 1979 for the examination of his alleged left thumb impressions appearing on the document by the expert which was allowed and the plaintiff deposited a sum of Rs. 200.00 as cost of the expert and the necessary photographs of left thumb impressions were taken as per the order of the Court and the defendant preferred a revision against the said order which was dismissed directing the Court below to act in accordance with law and the examination of thumb impressions aforesaid has remained hanging and truth could not be brought to light in the said proceeding. Lastly, it has been alleged that the sale deed dated 13.6.1979 is a fraudulent document never executed by the plaintiff and it has not affected the title of the plaintiff in respect of the suit premises. 4 The case of the defendant -respondent, inter alia, is that the wife of the plaintiff was seriously ill and for her treatment he was in dire need of money which he could not procure from any other sources and as such the plaintiff wanted to sale the suit premises for Rs. 7000.00 , and since this defendant had no house and her family members have increased so she wanted to purchase the suit premises for a sum of Rs. 7,000.00 and the transaction of sale having been settled, the plaintiff applied before the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad under the provisions of Urban Ceiling Act for permission to transfer the suit premises to this defendant and on proper enquiry the permission was granted and after taking the certified copy of the aforesaid permission, the plaintiff transferred the suit premises to this defendant by executing and registering the sale deed on 13.6.1979 and the consideration money was paid to the plaintiff by this defendant before the Sub -Registrar at the time of registration of the said sale deed and this fact has been endorsed in the sale deed by the Sub -Registrar and it has also been acknowledged by the plaintiff in the sale deed itself and Ajit Kumar Dutta is the scribe of the said sale deed and the plaintiff himself gave delivery of the possession of one room to the defendant after execution of the sale deed and promised to give delivery of possession of the other rooms later on. It is further alleged that it is false to say that the husband of the defendant had paid a sum of Rs. 800.00 to the plaintiff as loan on interest at the rate of two percent per month and had kept original sale deed dated 10.12.1957 as security and took the thumb impressions for the plaintiff on blank papers and Ajit Kumar Dutta has persuaded the plaintiff to hand over the original sale deed and pressed him to give his left thumb impressions on blank paper as well as the defendant undertook to return the same on repayment of the loan with interest. It is also false to say that Chandrika Kumar had ever taken left thumb impressions of the plaintiff on any blank paper and it is equally false to say that the plaintiff has paid a sum of Rs. 1200.00 to the husband of the defendant towards the repayment of the loan and interest and the case of threat as made out by the plaintiff is equally false and has been deliberately introduced by the plaintiff. It is further alleged that no fraud was ever practised by Chandrika Kumar at any time on the plaintiff for execution of the sale deed. It is alleged that after execution of the sale deed the plaintiff has himself handed over the original sale deed dated 10.12.1957. It is also alleged that it is totally false to say that another man was set up as Budh Ram, to put his left thumb impression on the said sale deed. It is alleged that this defendant had no objection if the left thumb impression of the defendant appearing on the sale deed and other relevant registers is sent to finger print expert for examination and comparison. Further case of the defendant is that the sale deed dated 13.6.1979 is a genuine and valid document duly executed by the plaintiff whereby and whereunder this defendant has acquired valid right, title and interest in the premises and he came in possession thereon,