- (1.)This is an application filed by the Petitioner under Order 44 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure for permission to file an appeal against the judgment and decree of the First Additional District Judge, Bangalore, in O.S. No.112 of 1951-52, in forma pauperis.
(2.)The Petitioner was the Plaintiff in the Court below and had sought for cancellation of the sale deed dated 26-2-1951 executed by her in favour of the respondent and relating to the plaint schedule property on tbe ground that it was a false, fraudulent and nominal document. She had also sought for delivery of possession of the plaint schedule property from the respondent with mesne profits. The respondent resisted the claim of the petitioner and contended among other things that he was the absolute owner of the property having purchased it from its previous owner for valuable consideration on 10-5-1947 but had got the sale deed nominally executed in the name of the petitioner, who was his wife and that the petitioner had subsequently willingly executed the deed dated 26-2-1961 which though was styled as a sale deed was really a deed of declaration of his title. He denied that he had practised any fraud or undue influence on the petitioner and secured the sale deed from the petitioner. The learned District Judge held, on the evidence adduced by the parties, that it was the respondent that had paid the consideration and purchased the property from its previous owner on 10-5-1947 and the sale deed in the name of the petitioner was benami for the respondent. He held further that the petitioner had failed to establish that the sale deed dated 26-2-1951 executed in favour of the respondent was tainted with any fraud or was the result of undue influence practised by the respondent on her and dismissed the suit. It is to prefer an appeal against the said decision in forma pauperis that the present petition has been filed by the petitioner.
(3.)It was urged by Sri E.Kanakasabhapathy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the findings of the learned District Judge are the result of gross misappreciation of the evidence on record; that there is very good evidence to come to the conclusion that it was on account of the fraud and undue influence practised by the respondent on the petitioner that she executed the sale deed dated 26-2-1951 in his favour.
;