- (1.) D. C. Srivastava, J. This is second appeal by defendant No. 1 Srnt. Ketki Devi.
(2.) THE brief facts are that the plaintiff Laxman filed a suit against the defendants for cancellation of the gift deed dated 5th January, 1970 executed by Fateh Singh in favour of defendant No. 1 Smt. Kiran Devi alias Ketki, appellant, alias Kailashi, Fateh Singh was the brother of the plaintiff Lax man Singh. Lala Ram was the son of Fateh Singh. Wife of Lala Ram married with defendant No. 2 Roshan Lal. Lala Ram died in 1955. It was alleged that defendant No. 1 in collusion with defendant No. 2, with a view to grab the land of Fateh Singh got a forged and fictitious gift deed prepared on 5th January, 1970. It was alleged that the gift deed was never executed by Fateh Singh and that the said gift deed was not binding upon the plaintiff. THE allegation of fraud in ob taining the gift deed was also made. Defendant No. 1 contested the suit pleading that the gift deed was executed by Fateh Singh on 5th January, 1970 in her favour. It was denied that the defendant No. 1 married with defendant No. 2. It was also denied that Lala Ram died in!955. It was alleged that Fateh Singh had 1/3 share in Sirdars land which was the subject-matter of the gift deed. Fateh Singh applied before the Tahsildar for declaration of bhumidhari rights and deposited 10 times annual rent on 28th November, 1969. Bhumidhari sanad was issued on 29th June, 1970 in favour of Fateh Singh. Fateh Singh was thus entitled to execute the gift deed of his 1/3rd share, the first deed was, therefore, said to be valid. In the year 1973 Fateh Singh died whereupon defendant No. 1 applied for par tition of his 1/3rd share, which was decreed by the revenue court on 21st January, 1981 and preliminary decree was passed. In those proceedings no objection was raised that the first deed is fraudulent, forged and fictitious. The trial court found that the gift-deed was executed by Fateh Singh and he was entitled to execute the same because he became Bhumidhari and obtained bhumidhari Sanad. The suit was accordingly dis missed. In appeal, the lower appellate court partly allowing the appeal, set aside the im pugned gift deed. It is, therefore this second appeal.
(3.) CROSS-objection was also filed by Laxman. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties in second appeal as well as in cross-objection.;