MAHENDRA DAYAL,J. - (1.) The appellants, by means of this first appeal from order, have assailed the judgment and order dated 24.01.2014, passed by Additional District Judge, Court No.1, Sitapur in Civil Appeal No.68 of 2010, whereby the appellate Court while setting aside the judgment and decree passed by Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sitapur in Suit No.568 of 1999, remanded the suit back to the trial court with direction to decide the same afresh, after obtaining written statement of defendant Nos.2 to 4 and frame additional issues in the light of the observations made in the body of the judgment and after affording opportunity to the parties for adducing evidence, if they so desire.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the husband of the appellant No.1 and the appellants No.2 and 3 filed a suit for cancellation of sale-deed and permanent injunction against the respondents with the allegations that the husband of the appellant No.1, namely, Prakash was a person of unsound mind. He had agricultural land in District Hardoi and Sitapur. The family of the appellants was dependent upon the income derived from the agricultural land. Taking advantage of the unsoundness of mind of Prakash, his nephew Hari Shankar, who was a person of criminal background, colluded with the husband of the respondent No.1, namely, Salik Ram, who was Collection Amin at the relevant time. It was said that on 23.06.1999, the husband of the appellant No.1 was taken away from his house by Salik Ram along with Hari Shankar and Mallah Singh on the pretext that they would arrange some job in Tehsil. When the husband of the appellant No.1 Prakash did not return for several days, the appellant No.1 gave an application to the police and also made search of her husband but he could not be found. The report of the appellant No.1 was lodged after great efforts and Salik Ram obtained bail from the Court. Thereafter, on 10.07.1999, the appellant received an information that Salik Ram, Collection Amin got sale-deed executed from the husband of the appellant No.1 and was bent upon taking forcible possession over the said agricultural land. After the report of the appellant No.1 was lodged, the police conducted raid in the house of Salik Ram and Hari Shankar and only then the husband of the appellant No.1 could be rescued. Subsequently, it was found that Salik Ram got executed two sale-deeds one dated 23.09.1999 and the other dated 25.06.1999 in favour of his wife respondent No.1 Kamla Devi. The plaint was filed with the allegations that because of unsoundness of mind, the husband of the appellant No.1, namely, Prakash was not in a condition to execute the sale-deed out of his free will and as such the sale-deeds executed by him, were obtained by fraud and were void. It was also stated that the land which was allegedly sold by the husband of the appellant No.1, was undivided property of joint Hindu family and could not have been sold by him.
(3.) The respondent No.1 Kamla Devi (now deceased) contested the suit by filing written statement and denied all the allegations made in the plaint. It was pleaded by her that the property was divided by means of mutual partition amongst all the share-holders. The husband of the appellant No.1 executed the sale-deed before the Sub-Registrar in presence of the witnesses. He was in full senses when he executed the sale-deed. He was not suffering from mental disease. It is wrong to say that the sale-deed was obtained by playing fraud upon him. The husband of the appellant No.1 executed the sale-deed after receiving sale consideration in respect of his share. The respondents No.3 and 4, who were defendants No. 2 and 3 in the original suit, did not appear in-spite of sufficient service of notice. It appears that during the course of trial, the defendants No.2 and 3, who are respondents No.3 and 4 in this appeal, sold the property again to Ramesh Kumar Singh respondent No.2 and on the application of the appellants, he was also impleaded as one of the defendants. He also did not appear before the court below and the learned trial court after framing necessary issues, took evidence of the parties and by means of the judgment and decree dated 04.01.2011, decreed the suit and cancelled the sale-deed dated 25.06.1999 as well as the sale-deed dated 23.07.1999.;