BEKARU Vs. MITHAI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendant- appellants' appeal arising out of the judgment and order dated 16.12.2013 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 8, Azamgarh, in Civil Appeal No. 125 of 2012, Mithai Lal Vs. Bekaru and another, allowing the appeal and remanded the case for deciding afresh by setting aside the judgment and decree dated 6.3.2012 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Azamgarh, dismissing the plaintiff- respondent's Original Suit No. 844 of 2006, Mithai Lal Vs. Bekaru and others, for cancellation of sale deed and for granting permanent injunction.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that plaintiff- respondent Mithai Lal filed Original Suit No. 844 of 2006 in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Azamgarh, praying for a relief of cancellation of sale deed dated 11.6.2002 and 28.3.2006 and also granting relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants- appellants from interfering with plaintiff's possession over the properties in dispute.

(3.) According to the plaint allegation the disputed properties described at the foot of the plaint belonged to one Hubraj, son of vijai, who died and left behind his widow Smt. Sonkali. It is further alleged that the Hubraj before his death had executed a Will in favour of the plaintiff Mithai Lal on 15.12.1970 relating to disputed properties described at foot of the plaint. After the death of Hubraj the plaintiff Mithai Lal became the owner and in the possession of that properties through will. The defendant no. 1 is a Doctor and the defendant no. 2 is a Compounder and both in collusion got sale deeds dated 11.6.2002 and 28.3.2006 prepared in respect of the disputed property by showing execution by Smt. Sonkali, wife of Late Hubraj. The said sale deeds are forged and fictitious one for the reason that Smt. Sonkali executed these sale deeds under impression of getting widow pension papers and it was executed by some imposter other than Smt. Sonkali. No consideration had been passed in this respect and there is no reason before Sonkali to sell the said properties. In the month of June the plaintiff knew about the void sale deed then he requested the defendants for getting the sale deeds cancelled but they raised disputes with him, hence this suit.