VIKRAMADITYA PRASAD, J. - (1.) IN this Second appeal the following substantial question of law is to be decided : "Whether the learned Lower Appellate Court committed an error of law in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court without meeting its reasons on -the basis whereof he came to the conclusion that the purported deed executed by the plaintiff appellant was obtained by the defendant by practising fraud upon her -
(2.) THE aforesaid question arose out of the following facts. Pogi Kuer, appellant, was the plaintiff in the original suit. She belongs to scheduled caste. The disputed land is situated in village Turundu. police station Kamdara. District Gumla (at the relevant time Distt. Gumla was not in existence) and the district was Ranchi. The suit land was recorded in the name of Dukha Pradhan. who died issueless and plaintiff became the only heir claiming through Nanglay and she inherited the said lands. She was in need of money and she wanted to mortgage the said land with the defendant No. 1, who is respondent No. 1 in this appeal. Defendant agreed to the proposal of the plaintiff and took her to Ranchi but by practising fraud he got the sale deed executed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff as a matter of fact was made to believe that the deed in question was a mortgage deed but when she learnt about the fraudulent act of the defendant No. 1, she cancelled the deed dated 31.3.1980 by a cancellation deed on 27.1.1981 and the fact was that the plaintiff never parted with possession of the land and the suit land was in her possession for all practical purposes. Defendant No. 1 on the basis of that deed got his name mutated and the C.O. Kamdara. rejected the objection of the plaintiff. Consequently, the suit was filed by the plaintiff -appellant for a decree that the sale deed in favour of defendant No. 1 is null and void and binding on her and for a confirmation of her possession and in alternative for recovery of possession. The defendants case was that the plaintiff was in need of money and the negotiated with the defendant to sell the land and at the same time she also contacted with Hardugan Pahan and Langu Pradhan for sale of her other lands. The plaintiff, accordingly. executed three registered sale deeds on 31.3.1980 itself at Ranchi. The plaintiff wilfully sold the land with this defendant and since the date of transfer this defendant has been in peaceful and cultivating possession over the suit land. It was also averred that the defendant had no knowledge about the cancellation of the deed and, therefore, such cancellation of deed is not binding upon him. It was further averred that Circle Officer. Kamdara. allowed the defendant to be mutated with respect to the suit land. It was not only he but the other two vendees Lagnu Pradhan and Hardugan Pahan were also mutated with respect to the lands transferred to them by the plaintiff. Therefore, a prayer was made for dismissing the suit.
(3.) THE learned trial Court after hearing the parties framed the following issues : I. Is the Suit as framed maintainable ? II. Has the plaintiff cause of action for the suit ? III. Is the suit barred by law of limitation, waiver, acquiescence, estoppel and the principle of ouster ? IV. Is the suit land under valued ? V. Is the sale deed valid and binding on the plaintiff? VI. Has the plaintiff any subsisting right, title and interest over the lands covered under sale deed ? VII. To what relief or reliefs, if any. is the plaintiff entitled ? The trial Court decided Issue Nos. VI in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit on contest against the defendant No. 1 (Respondent). Against that judgment and decree, an appeal was filed and the Sub -Judge -1. Gumla. in Title Appeal No. 35 of 1983 reversed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and allowed the appeal.;