- (1.) THIS second appeal arises out of a suit which the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 filed against five defendants. Defendants Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 are respondents Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 respectively in the instant appeal. The defendant No. 5 Smt. Safi Devi, is the appellant before me. The plaintiff sought the recovery of possession of house No. 77, Muthiganj, Allahabad. A decree for mesne profits @ Re. 1/- per day with effect from June 10, 1968 to the date of suit amounting to Rs. 50/- and pendente lite and future mesne profits at the same rate until the delivery of possession were also claimed. Further, the plaintiff claimed rent from the tenant defendant No. 4 Jagannath, @ Rs. 12/- per month from June 10, 1968 to the date of suit amounting to Rs. 20/- and pendente lite and future rent.
(2.) THE brief facts are these : A sale deed was executed on June 10, 1968 by the defendant No. 1, Kartik Prasad acting for himself and as the father and guardian of his minor son, Bhanu, defendant No. 2 and by Atul Roy, defendant No. 3, in favour of the plaintiff, Mahadeo Prasad. THE sale deed was executed in respect of house No. 77, Muthiganj, Allahabad and for a stated consideration of Rs. 4,000/-. Due to the circumstances which have been stated in the plaint, the sale deed was finally registered on 25th June, 1968, on which date the defendant No. 1. Kartik Prasad, appeared before the Sub-Registrar and admitted the execution of the sale deed on behalf of himself and his minor son, Bhanu. He also admitted the receipt of the consideration of the sale deed. However, the defendant No. 1, Kartik Prasad, on 18th June, 1968 executed another sale deed in respect of the same house in favour of Smt. Safi Devi, defendant No. 5. The deed was also registered on the same date i. e. 18th June, 1968. Jagannath Prasad, defendant No. 4, happened to be the tenant at the time when the aforesaid sale deeds were executed. The physical possession of the house was not delivered to the plaintiff, Mahadeo Prasad and he claimed that he came to know of the sale deed dated 18th June, 1968 when he applied for mutation of his name to the Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad. The defence, in brief, was that the sale deed dated 10th June, 1968 was not a voluntary act on the part of the defendant No. 1 who had been forced to append his signature on blank papers on 13th June, 1968. It was also alleged that an F. I. R. to the said effect was lodged by the defendant No. 1 on the same date 13th June, 1968 at police station, Colonelganj, Allahabad. It was further alleged by the said defendant that he was given drinks etc. and was threatened before he was forced to appear before the Sub-Registrar on 25th June, 1968. Under the said circumstances the defendant No. 1 claimed that he was forced to appear before the said Sub-Registrar and admitted the execution of the said sale deed dated 10th June, 1968. It was further alleged that after he came out of the Sub-Registrar' s office the money which had been paid to him before the Sub-Registrar was taken away from him by the plaintiff. In short, the allegation was that the said sale deed was not a binding and effective one. On the other hand, it was claimed that the defendant No. 1 had entered into an agreement with the defendant No. 5, Smt. Safi Devi, on 10th Feb. 1967 to sell the house in question in her favour for Rs. 3500/- and in pursuance of that agreement a sum of Rs. 500/- was paid to the defendant No. 1 on the same date i. e. 10th Feb. 1967. The sale deed dated 18th June 1968 was executed in pursuance of the said agreement of sale dated 10th Feb., 1967. The defendant No 5. claimed to be a bona fide purchaser for value without notice. She further claimed that the plaintiff, Mahadeo Prasad, had full knowledge of the earlier agreement of sale dated 10th Feb., 1967. in her favour. On the said grounds a counterclaim was set up for the cancellation of the sale deed dated 10th June, 1968.
(3.) THE trial court framed the necessary issues and after trial dismissed the suit. On appeal, however, the lower appellate court set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and decreed the suit. The defendant No. 5, Smt. Safi Devi, has now come up in the instant appeal and in support of the same Shri K. C. Saxena has made his submissions. On behalf of the plaintiff respondent Shri Deokinandan (as he then was) was heard in detail.;