S.R.Misra, J. - (1.) THESE two appeal arise out of a common judgment and decree dated 29-7-80 passed by IVth Additional District Judge, Bulandshahr in Civil Appeal no. 413 of 1980, arising out of suit no. 244 of 1977.
(2.) SINCE common questions of facts and law are involved in these two appeals, they are being decided by this common judgment The facts of the case, in brief are that plaintiff filed a suit with the allegations that Smt. Punia got executed a sale deed dated 18-6-76 from the plaintiff by way of misrepresentation. Plaintiff wanted a loan of Rs. 1000 from the defendant and defendant asked him to execute a document in lies thereof. Therefore, plaintiff went to (he Registration office and marked his thumb impression on a document after obtaining Rs. 1000 on 18- 6-1976. The defendant fraudulently got executed she aforesaid sale deed whereas the same was without any consideration and the contents whereof were never explained or read over to the plaintiff Thereafter, the matter was agitated before the Gram Panchayat. It was decided in that Panchayat that defendant will execute the sale deed in regard to the property in question in favour of the wife of plaintiff. On 20-7-1976, the plaintiff along with defendant and her son, went to the (Registration office. He had also purchased stamp of Rs. 1125 and a deed was prepared, But when the aforesaid sale deed was read over and explained to the plaintiff, it was found that the name of son of defendant was also incorporated along with wife of plaintiff, to which the plaintiff raised objection and, therefore, no sale deed could be executed. Hence the suit was filed.
(3.) THE defendant contested the suit on the ground that plaintiff had executed the sale dead after receiving whole consideration of Rs. 15,000 and understanding the contents of the sale deed fully well. THE theory of Panchayat was denied. It was on the request of the plaintiff that the defendant agreed to execute sale deed for half of the property on payment of Rs. 7,500. Plea of section 34 of the Specific Relief Act was also raised apart from other formal pleas The learned Munsif after considering the evidence on record and hearing the parties, held that the sale deed in question was liable to be cancelled on the ground of misrepresentation and for want of consideration. Theory of Panchayat was believed by learned Munsiff and the suit was held not to be barred by section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree, appeal was filed by defendant. Appeal was allowed in part by order dated 29-7-80. While suit for cancellation of -sale deed was decreed on payment of Rs. 6,500 by the plaintiff to the defendant within a period of one month the suit was not decreed in toto and, therefore, plaintiff as well as defendant, feeling aggrieved have approached this court by means of these two appeals.;