- (1.) The appellant, Bachna Ram, has challenged the legality of the judgment and decree dated 25.05.2001 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Div.), Degana, whereby the learned Civil Judge has dismissed the suit filed by the appellant for cancellation of a sale-deed dated 06.07.1989. He has also challenged the judgment and decree dated 15.09.2005 passed by the District Judge, Merta, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant, and has confirmed the judgment and decree dated 29.05.2001.
(2.) In brief, the facts of the case are that Bachan Singh had filed a suit, inter-alia, on the ground that, Tikuda and Ratna Ram (respondent Nos.5 & 6 before this Court) and he are sons of Mangu Ram. According to the appellantplaintiff, their father, Mangu Ram, had certain land in Khasra No.654 & 655. After his death, the said parcels of land devolved to the plaintiff, and to Tikuda and Ratna Ram. They were in joint possession of the said property. However, the respondent-defendants Nos. 1 to 3, Ratna Ram s/o Prabhu Ram, Ramji Ram s/o Prabhu Ram and Nathu Ram s/o Prabhu Ram, played a fraud on his brother Tikuda, who was a simpleton. They convinced him that they had prepared the papers for partition of the family property. However, they got him to sign a sale-deed dated 06.07.1989. Therefore, the plaintiff prayed that he had the right to get the said sale-deed cancelled. The respondent-defendants Nos. 1 to 3, filed their written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint. Respondent Nos.5 & 6, Tikuda and Ratna Ram filed a reply supporting the case of the plaintiff. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned trial Court framed eight issues including the issue of relief.
(3.) In order to buttress the case, the appellantplaintiff examined four witnesses and submitted a few documents. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 29.05.2001.;