DULARIADEVI Vs. JANARDANSINGH
LAWS(SC)-1990-3-12
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ALLAHABAD)
Decided on March 02,1990

DULARI DEVI Appellant
VERSUS
JANARDANSINGH Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

NINGAWWA VS. BYRAPPA SHIDDAPPA HIREKNRABAR [FOLLOWED]



Cited Judgements :-

KULUWA VS. PUNIA [LAWS(ALL)-1994-3-28] [REFERRED TO]
GULABI VS. RAM AUTAR [LAWS(ALL)-1995-4-18] [REFERRED TO]
DWARIKA SINGH VS. DISTRICT JUDGE [LAWS(ALL)-1996-1-29] [REFERRED TO]
DWARIKA SINGH VS. DISTRICT JUDGE JAUNPUR [LAWS(ALL)-1996-1-84] [REFERRED TO]
KUNWAR SINGH VS. SRI THAKURJI MAHARAJ BIRAJMAN MANDIR GAUNTIA NAJRA DHAMIPUR BAREILLY [LAWS(ALL)-1996-5-78] [REFERRED TO]
DULAREY VS. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION BASTI [LAWS(ALL)-1997-11-111] [REFERRED TO]
CHHANGA VS. IST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE JAUNPUR [LAWS(ALL)-1998-5-91] [REFERRED TO]
SUMITRA DEVI VS. FIRST ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE BASTI [LAWS(ALL)-1999-5-10] [REFERRED TO]
BARKHU VS. VTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE BASTI [LAWS(ALL)-2004-5-129] [REFERRED TO]
RAHMATULLAH VS. CIVIL JUDGE SENIOR DIVISION [LAWS(ALL)-2004-7-170] [REFERRED TO]
KUNDAN SINGH VS. 1ST ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE BIJNORE [LAWS(ALL)-2009-4-422] [REFERRED TO]
NAYUDU VENKAFARANGA RAO VS. RAMADASU SATYAVATHI [LAWS(APH)-2001-3-95] [REFERRED TO]
SELVARASU KOUNDER VS. SAHADEVA KOUNDER [LAWS(MAD)-1997-2-136] [REFERRED]
B C RAVINDRA VS. DEVIRAMMA [LAWS(KAR)-2010-4-14] [REFERRED TO]
ASHARFI LAL VS. KOILI DEADBYLRS [LAWS(SC)-1995-4-14] [RELIED ON]
NARENDER SINGH VS. JAI BHAGWAN [LAWS(SC)-2004-12-20] [REFERRED TO]
MADAN MOHAN MISHRA VS. CHANDRIKA PANDEY [LAWS(SC)-2009-2-75] [REFERRED TO]
D R RATHNA MURTHY VS. RAMAPPA [LAWS(SC)-2010-10-89] [REFERRED TO]
THIRUMALAI VADIVU AMMAL DIED VS. MUTHAMMAL [LAWS(MAD)-1999-4-89] [REFERRED TO]
RADHABAI VS. ARUNAGIRI [LAWS(MAD)-2008-1-380] [REFERRED TO]
GIRISH KUMAR H JAIN VS. RANI MARY [LAWS(MAD)-2010-5-7] [REFERRED TO]
RAJDEEP SINGH VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-1998-7-46] [REFERRED TO]
SUKHPAL SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1998-2-5] [REFERRED TO]
MOHSIN KHAN VS. J M GANDHI [LAWS(RAJ)-2011-4-5] [REFERRED TO]
SACHIDA NAND SHARMA @ SACHIDA NAND PANDEY VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2013-3-24] [REFERRED TO]
BRIJENDRA VS. D D C FAIZABAD [LAWS(ALL)-2014-9-202] [REFERRED TO]
HAR SWAROOP VS. DY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION BIJNORE [LAWS(ALL)-2015-5-267] [REFERRED TO]
RAM MURTI TIWARI AND ORS. VS. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, UNNAO AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-11-21] [REFERRED TO]
DHARAM DEI VS. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-12-168] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. SHANTI ALIAS SATIYA VS. SMT. PHOOLAN DULLAIYA [LAWS(ALL)-2016-5-57] [REFERRED TO]
AJAI KUMAR SINGH AND OTHERS VS. SECOND ADDL. DISTT. JUDGE, BALLIA AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-1991-12-98] [REFERRED TO]
SACHIDA NAND SHARMA @ SACHIDA NAND PANDEY VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2010-9-267] [REFERRED]
K ABDULLA VS. SATISH A DESSAI [LAWS(NCD)-2005-12-120] [REFERRED]
PARAMANAND OJHA VS. OM PRAKASH AND 08 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2018-10-110] [REFERRED TO]
TRIBHUVAN VS. VEDMANI [LAWS(ALL)-2018-10-111] [REFERRED TO]
NOOR MOHAMMAD VS. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION [LAWS(ALL)-2020-5-36] [REFERRED TO]
K. KALIDASS VS. P. MUNUSAMI [LAWS(MAD)-2019-7-726] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Thommen, J. - (1.)This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal No. 2954 of 1979 whereby the learned Judge of the High Court, allowing the defendants' appeal, set aside the decrees of the Courts below. The High Court held that the suit was barred by reason of Section 49 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Hence the present appeal by the plaintiff.
(2.)The plaintiff is an illiterate person. Her daughter Rameshwari Devi is the wife of the 6th defendant, Yogendra Prasad Singh. Arjun Singh and Janardan Singh, defendant Nos. 3 and 4, are the brothers of the 6th defendant. Defendant Nos.3 and 4 had gained the confidence of the plaintiff and she confided in them her desire to make a gift of her entire properties in favour of her daughter. Defendants Nos.3 and 4 readily agreed to make arrangements to execute and register the necessary deed. On 18-9-1971, these defendants took the plaintiff to the office of the Sub-Registrar. The plaintiff paid the amount needed for expenses. The defendants purchased stamp papers in the name of the plaintiff. On two deeds, which had been prepared at the instance of the defendants, the plaintiff was made to put her thumb impressions. Being an illiterate person, she could not read the contents of the documents or understand their character. She had been told, and she honestly believed, that she was executing a gift deed in favour of her daughter, as desired by her, in respect of her properties. She had in fact executed two deeds, one of which was a gift in favour of her daughter and the other a sale deed in favour of all the defendants. The consideration for the sale shown in the document was Rs. 14,000/-. This was a clear case of fraud practised upon her by the defendants. The defendants and the Sub-Registrar as well as the document-writer had all conspired together to perpetrate the fraud. The plaintiff did not know that she had executed a sale deed in favour of the defendants in respect of her property until 25th June, 1974 when she found defendant Nos. 3 and 4 interfering with her possession of the property. They told her that she had executed a sale deed in their favour. It was only on 2nd July, 1974 that she came to know of the full facts. Accordingly, she filed a suit for cancellation of the sale deed. The suit was decreed by the trial Court and that decree was confirmed in appeal by the first appellate Court. Setting aside the decree in the defendants second appeal, the High Court held that the plaintiff was totally deceived as to the character of the document which she executed and the document was, therefore, void and of no effect whatsoever. Accordingly, the suit was barred under S. 49 of the Act under which consolidation proceedings had been pending at the time of the institution of the suit in respect of the property in question.
(3.)The facts are not in dispute. It is not disputed that the documents in question came to be executed in the manner alleged by the plaintiff. The appellant, however, contends that since it was a case of the document having been vitiated by fraud, the transaction was voidable, but not void, and, therefore, the suit to set aside the sale was rightly instituted by her and the bar of S. 49 was not attracted. The appellant contends that the suit is perfectly maintainable and the High Court was wrong in holding to the contrary.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.