K.S.RAKHRA, J. - (1.) THIS is second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 23.3.1983 passed by the IInd Additional District Judge, Faizabad in First Appeal No. 265/1980, whereby he partly allowed appeal and modified the judgment and order dated 1.5.1980, of VIth Additional Munsif Magistrate, Faizabad in Regular Suit No. 77 of 1978.
(2.) I have heard Sri Chaudhary Shatrughan holding brief of Sri D.P. Singh Advocate for appellant and Sri U.S. Sahai holding brief of Sri H.S. Sahai counsel for the respondent and perused the record. The appellant is daughter of Bhagwant from IInd wife while respondent is son from 1st wife, Bhagwant had executed a sale -deed on 7.7.1975 in favour of Gaya Pati appellant and consequent upon it, the name of Gaya Pati on the plots sold, was entered in the Revenue Record on 8.3.1976. Bhagwant died on 20.10.1977. Admittedly, Bhagwant, his son Ayodhya and Bhagwant's second wife Bunda were recorded owners of Khasra Plot No. 2119A, 1791 (Minjumla), 2119B, 1660, 1658, 1708, 1897/2224 and Khasra Plot No. 2028. Total area of these plots was about 12.5 Bighas. The sale -deed in question was executed by Bhagwant with regard to 4 Bighas, 4 Biswas and 3 Dhoors land out of the aforesaid Khasra numbers. After the death of Bhagwant on 20.10.1977, the plaintiff respondent filed Regular Suit No. 77 of 1978 against defendant appellant for cancellation of the aforesaid sale -deed mainly on the grounds contained in para 5 of the plaint, i.e., that the sale -deed was obtained by fraud ; Bhagwant was old man of 75 years and had lost capacity of understanding the implication of the document ; he was deaf and the defendant had exerted undue influence upon him. The sale -deed was further challenged on the ground of bar contained in the provision of Section 168 of U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act. The defendant contested the suit on the ground that the sale -deed was valid and was executed by Bhagwant after fully understanding its implication. He was not under any influence and was of sound mind. It was further contended that the sale -deed was not bad on account of the provisions of Section 168 of U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act. The plea of bar of Section 49 of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was also raised.
(3.) THE trial court framed three issues, namely : (a) Whether the impugned sale -deed is liable to be cancelled for the reasons mentioned in para 5 of the plaint? (b) Whether suit was undervalued and the Court -fee paid was insufficient? (c) To what relief if the plaintiff was entitled? ;