MUNNI BAI Vs. KRISHNA PAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been preferred against the order of reversal by the First appellate Court of order of temporary injunction granted by the Trial Court in favour of plaintiff/petitioner.

(2.) IN short the plaintiff/petitioner instituted a suit for declaration of title and perpetual injunction on the ground that the husband of the plaintiff and his brothers were Pattedar of the land comprised in Survey No. 389/1 Kha and survey No. 389/1-E situated at Village Chandora, Tehsil Jaisingh Nagar, District shahdol. Similarly, the plaintiff is stated to be recorded Bhumiswamini of land comprised in Survey No. 389/gha area 0. 995 hectares. Adjacent to it in southern direction there situates other piece of land belonging to plaintiffs husband and father of defendant No. 1. There situates another land comprised in Survey no. 389/ka in area 1. 295 hectares at Village Chandora, Tehsil Jaisingh Nagar district Shahdol which belonged to defendant No. 2 as Pattedar. Plaintiff purchased part of this land admeasuring 0. 486 hectares vide registered sale deed dated 20th of June, 2003 and obtained its possession. Her name was duly mutated in the revenue record. The plaintiff mortgaged the said piece of land with other land with the Central Bank, Branch Amjhor and obtained a loan for shop.

(3.) DEFENDANT No. 1 and his father were interested in purchasing the aforesaid disputed land and having failed in their attempt they developed enmity with the plaintiff, since she had purchased it. Defendant No. 3 is holding the post of Naib Tehsildar and is a close relative of defendant Nos. 1 and 2. Defendant no. 1 colluded with defendant No. 2 and tried to forcibly dispossess the plaintiff on 20-6-04. Plaintiffs husband reported the matter to the police. Thereafter, the defendant No. 2 submitted an application in the Court of defendant No. 3 under section 250 of the M. P. L. R. Code against the plaintiff's husband and his brothers. On being served, plaintiffs husband and his brother went to the office of the defendant No. 3 who threatened that the land available with the plaintiffs husband under different pattas would be taken back after cancellation of patta unless the plaintiff executes a sale deed in respect of disputed land. The plaintiffs husband was thus threatened. He came to the house and took back plaintiff with him. The sale deed was already prepared and the signature of the plaintiff was obtained on it under the threat without any consideration. The plaintiff/petitioner has made a prayer for declaration that the registered sale i deed dated 11-8-04 may be declared as fraudulent deed without consideration and that no rights accrued on this basis in favour of the defendant No. 1.