Raghvendra Kumar, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.) Initially a suit was filed on behalf of Mitthan Lal against Smt. Har Devi and others for the relief of cancellation of sale deed dated 8.4.1992 The suit NO. 1055 of 1992 was decided by the Add. Civil Judge ( Jr. Division), Room No.4, District Etah whereby the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff preferred first appeal before the District Judge, Etah, The District Judge, vide its order dated 27.4.2016 dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff in negative. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgement and order of the court below, the instant appeal is before this court. Heard learned for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent.
(3.) It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the plaintiff has challenged the judgement of the trial court as well as the first appellate court. The sale deed in question was assailed on the ground that Mitthan Lal who has executed the sale deed in favour of Smt. Har Devi (Now deceased) was not mentally sound as such he was not capable of executing the deed. Further ground of assail was that the sale reconsideration was not passed and the deed was fabricated. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that he moved an application under Order 41, Rule 27 C.P.C. before the first appellate court for accepting the evidence with respect to the mental condition of Mitthan Lal which was rejected by the first appellate court and the same order was challenged before this Hon'ble Court and the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court considering the order to be interlocutory rejected the prayer of the plaintiff. It has further been submitted that the learned first appellate court has failed to comply with the provisions contained under Order 41, Rule 31 C.P.C. which are mandatory in nature.;