- (1.) R. N. Ray, J. The plaintiff as appel lant has preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree passed in Civil Appeal No. 114 of 1978 dated 2-9-82 reversing the judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court.
(2.) THE plaintiff filed the suit being numbered as 549 of 1975 which was filed in the Court of Munsif, Haveli, Meerut. It is the plaintiff's case that the plaintiff is an illeterate, simple and old man aged about 60 years and he is hard of hearing and his eye sight is also very weak. He is the owner and in possession of the disputed agricultural land. It was contended that amount of Rs. 3000/- and Rs. 4500/- was due to Bank and Co-operative Societies and some amount was also due which was taken from some other villagers. THErefore, he was badly needed Rs. 1000/- to liquidate the said debts. THE plaintiff asked the husband of the defendants to advance a loan of Rs. 10, 000/-to him. THE husband of the defendants agreed to pay, on condition that the plain tiff to execute mortgage deed with 1% per mensem interest after depositing 20 times annual rental in Tahsil. THE plaintiff agreed to the proposal and thereafter the plaintiff and the husband of the respondents ex ecuted the mortgage deed and plaintiff deposited 20 times of rent for converting his right into bhumidhari right and after two days to that, he went to the office of Sub-Registrar with the husbands of the defen dants with the witnesses, who were the per sons of the husbands of the defendants. THE plaintiff and the witnesses, when the sale deed was being written, had been asked to sit in some distant place on the pretext that there was crowed at the place of scribe and after the document was written, he was asked to put his thumb impressions. THE plaintiff, who had confidence in the hus bands of the defendants and was in need of money, put his thumb impressions at many places. As per instruction of the husband of the defendant No. 1 he deposed that he had executed the document and he to receive Rs. 10000/ -. THE Sub-Registrar had inquired from him only these two things and he had answered in affirmative. Later on he was told that the document was a sale-deed for his lands for Rs. 20. 000/- executed by him in favour of the defendants. THE plaintiff took the copy of the sale-deed and got the con tents read over and then came to know that the defendant and the witnesses managed to fet the sale-deed executed in respect of the isputed land in favour of the defendants, though there was talk a simple mortgage for a sum of Rs. 10, 000/- in respect of the dis puted land. It was further the case of the plaintiff that the contents of the deed were never read over and explained to the plaintiff and he became the victim of fraud and collusion made by the defendants' husbands Bankey Lal and another. The land in question was a highly fertile agricultural land and the market price was not less than Rs. 90. 000/-at that time and as such there was no oc casion for him to sell the land for Rs. 20. 000/- and he never received any amount more than Rs. 10, 000/ -. The defendants contested the suit. The entire allegations of the plaint were denied and it was contended that it was a simple sale-deed. The plaintiff actually received Rs. 10, 000/- earlier as earnest money and later on received Rs. 10. 000/- as balance consideration money and executed the document. He knew the contents of the documents and the money was paid by the plaintiff for depositing Rs. 581. 20 on 6-2-74 for obtaining bhumidhari right, Rs. 5857. 61 paid to the United Commercial Bank Meerut and Rs. 3562 had been paid to Ved Prakash. The receipts of payment were given by the plaintiff to the defendants. On 8-2-74 the plaintiff executed the sale-deed of the disputed land in the presence of the witnesses of his choice and after getting the sale-deed executed and after understanding its contents he received a sum of Rs. 10, 000/-, before the Sub-Registrar, Meerut and the possession of the disputed land was delivered to the husbands of the defendants. The plaintiff himself moved an application for getting the names of the defendants mutated over the disputed property and the names of the defendants were recorded in the revenue papers. The defendants strong ly denied that the plaintiff was hard of hear ing and his eye-sight weak. The defendants have denied that the disputed property was mortgaged by the plaintiff and he had agreed to execute a mortgage-deed only.
(3.) THE parties led both oral and documentary evidences. After considering the materials on record, the trial Court held that the plaintiff wanted to make a simple mortgage deed against the advance of Rs. 10, 000/- only which he badly needed to square off his loan to the Bank and the Co-operative Society and some other per sons and the plaintiff never understood the contents of the deed and as such he was pleased to decree the suit by cancelling the disputed deed. Against the judgment and decreed which went in favour of the plain tiff, the defendants-appellants preferred ap peal THE learned Court below reversed the judgment after holding that it was the sale-deed simpliciter and the plaintiff parted the possession in favour of the defendants after execution of the sale-deed and it was further held by the learned Court below that the plaintiff received Rs. 20, 000/- in two stages for the disputed land and executed the sale deed and the plaintiffs allegations were all manufactured allegations. Against the judg ment of reversal, the present appeal has been preferred. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that nowhere in the deed, there has been any recital that the contents of the deed was read over and explained to the plaintiff. The doctor who examined the plaintiff, deposed on oath that the plaintiff was hard of hearing. He was wrong in discarding his evidence that the doctor did not opine whether the plaintiff was hard of hearing at the relevant time. It was further contended that both the wit nesses to the documents had stated on oath that the documents were never read over and explained to the plaintiff and they were also present and said that there was a talk of simple mortgage against payment of Rs. 10, 000 as loan money, and they also deposed that the plaintiff was in possession of the disputed land. The scribe of the docu ment said that he wrote the documents as per instruction of the plaintiff and the docu ment was read over and explained to the plaintiff. The defendant also stated that it was simple sale- deed and he paid Rs. 10, 000 earlier as earnest money and later on he paid balance amount of Rs. 10, 000 to the plaintiff before the Sub-Registrar. It has been submitted that it was the plaintiff who filed application for mutation of the names of the defendants in respect of the disputed land and accordingly the names of the defendants have been mutated in respect of the disputed land. The plaintiff converted his right into bhumidhari right after depositing 20 times of rent before the Revenue Officer concerned and got receipt of the payment which was handed over to the defendant. So the learned appellate Court was perfectly justified in allowing the appeal and the findings of the learned trial Court was result of misconception of facts and laws. In this way, the learned Counsel for the defendants- respondents urged the Court for dismissal of the appeal with costs.;