- (1.) The second appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law :- (i) Whether the judgment of the learned first appellate court is vitiated because of recording the finding without reversing the finding recorded by the trial court and on account of ignoring the material on record ? (ii) Whether the judgment is vitiated because of non-framing of the proper issues ?
(2.) The plaintiff-respondent had filed a suit for cancellation of the sale-deed on the ground that he is bhumidhar of Gata No.173 measuring 0.551 hectares and being very old he is dependent upon his nephews. The defendants-appellants are his real brother-in-law and are resident of District Gonda. In the year 1999, the wife of the plaintiff-respondent died and since he was very much mentally disturbed on account of death of his wife, the defendants-appellants on the pretext of providing him medical help, took him to an office and told him that they had prepared a deed of Will, so that after his death, the property may devolve upon his nephew. The plaintiff-respondent on the assurance given by the defendant-appellants put his thumb impression on the said document, but subsequently he came to know that the defendant-appellant has got the sale-deed executed in respect of his bhumidhari land. With the aforesaid allegations, the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for cancellation of the sale-deed on the ground of fraud.
(3.) The defendants-appellants contested the suit and filed the written statement denying the allegations and stating that the plaintiff-respondent had executed the sale-deed knowing fully well that the property was being sold to the defendants-appellants, the sale consideration was also paid to the plaintiff-respondent before execution of the sale-deed. He on being fully satisfied put his thumb impression before the Sub-Registrar and was also duly identified by the witnesses. The Sub-Registrar also on being satisfied that the plaintiff-respondent had executed a sale-deed out of his free will, registered the document. Since then, the defendants-appellants have been in continuous and peaceful possession of the property.;