Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties at the admission stage.
(2.) THIS is plaintiff's second appeal arising out of O.S. No.152 of 2005 instituted for cancellation of sale deed dated 27.07.2000 executed by the plaintiff -appellant in favour of the defendant -respondent. Even though, no one appeared for the defendant, still the suit was dismissed on 12.09.2005 by Civil Judge (Junior Division) Naugarh, District Siddharth Nagar. Against the said judgment and decree plaintiff -appellant filed Civil Appeal No.31 of 2005 which was dismissed on 25.10.2007 by District Judge, Siddharth Nagar hence this second appeal. In para 3 of the plaint it was stated that both plaintiff and defendant were habitual drunkers and smoked ganja also and both often consumed wine and smoked ganja together and one sale deed executed by the plaintiff in favour of some other person had also been cancelled by the Court in another case on the same ground and plaintiff -respondent had not been paid any sale consideration. The courts below found that apart from the sale deed in question two other sale deeds had also been executed by the plaintiff of his other land on 28.07.2000 and 30.07.2000 and the courts below held that it was not at all proved that the intoxicant was forcibly administered to the plaintiff -appellant.
(3.) I do not find least error in the impugned findings. The plaintiff himself stated that he was a habitual drunker. There was absolutely no allegation that defendant forced him to take wine or ganja or these intoxicants were administered to him without his knowledge or against his wish. In such situation a person cannot escape the liability even for his criminal acts in view of Section 85 and 86 I.P.C. In fact plaintiff was claiming a premium on his bad habits.;