- (1.) BHANWAR Singh, J. This appeal arises out of a judgment and decree dated 24-7-1979, passed by the then District Judge, Kheri. By virtue of the said judgment and decree, the learned District Judge al lowed the Civil Appeal No. 32 of 1979 filed by Mahabali, the plaintiff of an original suit No. 88of 1977 filed by him for cancellation of sale-deed executed by Smt. Jagdei.
(2.) THE brief facts giving rise to this appeal may be recapitulated as below: Mahabali, since deceased, filed original suit No. 88 of 1977 for cancella tion of the registered sale-deed dated 17-1-1977 executed by Smt. Jagdei in favour of the defendant-appellant, Madho Ram. THE said sale-deed was registered on 18-1-1977 and the plaintiff also pleaded for setting aside of the said registration. A short pedigree brought for by the plaintiff would reveal that one Neelkanth had two sons, namely, Raghubir and Jagan. Jagan had a son, Mohan who died leaving behind him Sml. Jagdei as his widow (the ex ecutant of the sale-deed in question ). Raghubir had two sons, namely, Gajodhar and Mahabali (plaintiff ). After the death of her husband, Sml. Jagdei became bhumidhar of two plots and Sirdar of one plot situated in village Banstali, Pargana and District Kheri. She had inherited the entire holding from her husband. Mahabali pleaded in her plaint that Smt. Jagdei was illiterate, inexperienced and a Pardanashin lady. At the time of executing the sale-deed, she was about 80-85 years of age. It was pleaded further by the plaintiff that the defendant, Madho Ram Verma being in collusion with Sheo Nandan Prasad and Banwari put up before the Sub-Registrar another lady who represented herself as Smt. Jagdei and got the sale-deed in question executed in his favour. As a matter of fact, Smt. Jagdei expired on 6-1-1977, i. e. 10 days before the date of the alleged execution of ihe sale-deed and, as such, the sale-deed was fictitious and col lusive. Further, the sale-deed being ex ecuted without prior permission of the District Collector was illegal and without authority. As a mailer of fact, the plaintiff who was a family member of Smt. Jagdei continued to be in possession of the entire agricultural holding and on the strength of his possession, he filed the sun for cancellation of the sale-deed. Madho Ram, the defendant resisted the suit and denied all the plaint allegations. According to him, Smt, Jagdei acquired the land in suit in the life-tune of her father-in-law from her own income. Being absolute owner of the entire hold ing, she was competent to transfer it to the defendant and the plaintiff Mahabali was neither the legal representative of the deceased, Jagdei nor he ever remained in possession. In fact, the plaintiff had full knowledge regarding execution of the sale-deed and it was on account of this that he did not file any objection in the muta tion proceedings. Being conscious of her legal right and knowledge, Smt. Jagdei in her life-time executed the impugned sale-deed in favour of answering defendant and delivered possession of the land to him. She had fully understood the contents of the sale-deed before she had executed it. It was denied that Smt. Jagdei was a Par-danasin lady. She was quite an experienced and shrewd woman and was able to under stand her own acts and welfare. She never lost her capacity to understand and at the time of the execution of the sale-deed, she was in her full senses. It was pleaded with vehemence that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. On having perused the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the fol lowing issues: 1. Whether the sale-deed dated 17-1-1977 was obtained as alleged in para 4 of the plaint? If so, its effect? 2. Whether the sale-deed in question is liable to be set aside as mentioned in para 5 of the plain!? 3. Whether the Civil Court had no juris diction to try the suit? 4. To what relief, if any. is the plaintiff entitled?
(3.) WHETHER the plaintiff is not the legal representative of the deceased? if so. its effect? Whether this Court had the jurisdiction to hear the case. 5. On having scrutinised the submis sions of the parties, the trial Court arrived at a common finding on issues 3 and 6 that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and on the basis of the said finding, the plaintiff's suit was dis missed. However, the plaintiff was recog nised to be as the legal representative of the deceased, Smt. Jagdei but no finding had been recorded on issues 1 and 2. 6. Feeling aggrieved of the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the plaintiff, Mahabali preferred an appeal which was heard and decided by the Dis trict Judge, Kheri vide its judgment of July, 24,1979.;