- (1.) POONAM Srivastava, J. Heard Sri S. K. Mehrotra, Counsel for the appellants and Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mohiuddin Khan, Advocate, appearing for the respondents.
(2.) THIS is defendant's second appeal arising out of judgment and decree dated 24. 2. 2001 in Civil Appeal No. 73 of 2000 passed by the IInd Additional District Judge, Unnao partly decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondents No. 1 against the judgment and decree dated 17. 5. 2000 in Regular Suit No. 30 of 1981 dismissing the suit instituted by the plaintiff/respondent No. 1. The suit was instituted for cancellation of a registered lease deed dated 4. 1. 1955 regarding plot Nos. 1336 and 1340 situated at Bangermau, District Unnao. Lease deed is said to be executed by Smt. Nanhi Devi. Facts of the case are that initially a Regular Suit No. 11 of 1968 was instituted in the Court of Munsif on 13. 8. 1968. The suit was kept pending for a considerable period and finally on 10. 4. 1981, plaint was returned under Order VII, Rule 10, C. P. C. for being filed in the appropriate Court. Thereafter, plaint was presented in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Unnao, on 7. 5. 1981 and suit was registered as a Regular Suit No. 30 of 1981. Claim of the plaintiff was that plot No. 1336 having an area of 5 bighas and plot No. 1340 having an area of 13 biswa, 10 biswansi were recorded as a grove immediately before abolition of Zamindari and after Act No. 1 of 1951 was enforced, bhoomdhari right was acquired in respect of plot No. 1340. Father of the plaintiff Bhupal Singh @ Ganesh Singh was owner of plot No. 1336 having an area of 2 bighas, 2 biswa and 15 biswansi. A temple was constructed on the remaining area, which is not disputed. Bhupal Singh had half share of plot No. 1340 and other half belonged to defendant Nos. 1 to 7. The aforesaid areas were partitioned in family settlement.
(3.) SUIT was instituted for cancellation of registered lease deed dated 4. 1. 1955, executed by Smt. Nanhi Devi on her behalf and also on behalf of minor son Ravindra Singh (Plaintiff No. 1) as well as other two sons. Chaudhary Sukhbir Singh and Gy-anendra Singh in favour of deceased Chaudhary Surendra Singh (defendant ). Other reliefs claimed was for possession, mesne profits and damages, and permanent prohibitory injunction. Case of the plaintiff was that both the plots exclusively belonged to the plaintiff but the lease deed was executed by Smt. Nanhi Devi, which was invalid, as Ravindra Singh plaintiff No. 1 was minor and the signature of her mother Smt. Nanhi Devi was obtained on account of undue influence by her other sons Sukhbir Singh. Market was held on the above plot since a very long time, but only one year before, institution of the suit, when the plaintiff No. 1 held market on the plot he was interfered on 13. 8. 1968. It was for the first time, it came to his knowledge about the existence of lease deed which led to institution of the suit. The suit was instituted on 13. 8. 1968 in the Court of Munsif, numbered as R. S. No. 11 of 1968, subsequently the plaint was returned on 10. 4. 1981 under Order VII, Rule 10, C. P. C. for presentation before appropriate Court. The plaint was thereafter presented on 7. 5. 1981 in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Unnao, as R. S. No. 30 of 1981. The suit was dismissed on 17. 5. 2000. Against this order. Civil Appeal No. 73 of 2000 was preferred. The Additional District Judge, Unnao, set aside the judgment of the Trial Court on 24. 2. 2001.;