Pratap Krishna Lohra, J. - (1.) APPELLANT -plaintiff has laid this second appeal to question the impugned judgment and decree dated 15th of July 2011, passed by Addl. District Judge No. 3, Udaipur (learned lower appellate Court), whereby the learned lower appellate Court has affirmed the judgment and decree dated 19th of January 2009, passed by Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) No. 1, North, Udaipur (learned trial Court), dismissing suit of the appellant -plaintiff for cancellation of sale -deed and permanent injunction.
(2.) APPELLANT -plaintiff in the suit, inter -alia, averred that an agricultural land at Manwa Kheda, Araji No. 3 & 4, is in his possession and he is cultivating the said land. It is also averred in the plaint that in the revenue records appellant's name is mentioned as Khatedar. In order to make out a case for cancellation of sale -deed, a specific fact is pleaded that appellant's mother Radha Bai, an illiterate lady, was induced by Pannalal, whose legal representatives are respondents in this appeal, to execute a simple mortgage for a sum of Rs. 900/ - pertaining to aforesaid agricultural land and thereupon she signed the document. It is also stated in the plaint that Smt. Radha Bai was kept in dark and Pannalal got a sale -deed executed for the disputed agricultural land in his favour on 27th June 1966. A specific relief is sought for declaring sale -deed dated 27th June 1966 as null and void vis -a -vis rights of the appellant. A further relief is also claimed that decree passed by Board of Revenue dated 9th January, 1980 be annulled and it may be declared ineffective vis -a -vis rights of the appellant. The relief of perpetual injunction is also sought against the then defendant Pannalal not to interfere with his peaceful possession and further not to make any effort for any alteration in the revenue record. The suit was contested by defendant Pannalal, wherein it is averred that Smt. Radha Bai, as a legal guardian of the appellant, executed registered sale -deed on 27th of June 1966 and handed over possession of the land as such from the date of purchase he has acquired Khatedari rights over land in question. In the written statement, on behalf of defendant Pannalal, it is specifically pleaded that Smt. Radha Bai was given the aforesaid agricultural land for cultivating one crop but subsequently she declined to handover possession to him and therefore a suit is filed in the Court of SDO, Girwa for possession of the land in question. The SDO, Girwa dismissed the suit, whereupon appellant approached revenue appellate authority by way of preferring first appeal but the same also had the same fate inasmuch as it was also rejected. After rejection of first appeal, as per defendant Pannalal, he approached Board of Revenue Ajmer by laying second appeal which was allowed by the learned Board of Revenue and the suit was accordingly decreed. A specific fact is pleaded in the written statement that pursuant to the judgment of the Board of Revenue, due to operation of stay order, possession could not be delivered to him. Asserting in the written statement that sale -deed is executed by Smt. Radha Bai, as a natural guardian of the appellant, for which she had full authority, a plea of delay is also incorporated in the written statement by urging that suit is barred by limitation, therefore, merits dismissal.
(3.) DURING pendency of the suit, Pannalal died and therefore, his legal representatives, respondents were taken on record. The learned trial Court, on the basis of pleadings of the rival parties, framed two issues for determination. Appellant himself appeared in the witness -box as PW1 and also examined one more witness as PW2 Purshottamlal. Besides that, documentary evidence was also tendered by the appellant. On behalf of respondent, DW1 Sunder Bai appeared in the witness -box and testified on oath.;