Uma Shankar Prasad Singh son of Bans Ropan Singh, both resident of v. village and post office
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Second Appeal No.307 of 2011 ====================================================== Taramuni Devi wife of Sri Madho Pd. Singh resident of village and P.O. Bhalai, P.S. Udwant Nagar, District-Bhojpur. .... .... Appellant/s 1. Gupteshwar Singh son of Sri Uma Shankar Prasad Singh. 2. Uma Shankar Prasad Singh son of Bans Ropan Singh, both resident of Versus village and post office-Bhalai P.S. Udantnagar, District-Bhojpur. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Naresh Chandra Verma For the Respondent/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYENDRA NATH ORAL ORDER 7 04-04-2013
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. Naresh Chandra Verma, the learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This appeal has been filed by the plaintiff-appellant against the judgment and decree of the appellate court below affirming the dismissal of the suit by the trial court. 3. The plaintiff filed the suit assailing the sale deed dated 03.06.1999 in favour of the defendants on the ground that the said sale deed has been obtained by misrepresentation of facts by one Upendra Narain Singh who was the tutor as well as the confidant of the plaintiff’s family, and by playing fraud and fabrication he got the said sale deed prepared in the names of his nephews who are the defendants in the suit. It is specific case of the plaintiff that she went to the registration office for the purpose of execution of a power of attorney in favour of the said Upendra Singh and she Patna High Court SA No.307 of 2011 (7) dt.04-04-2013 2 never intended or agreed to execute the sale deed in question. The plaintiff has also stated that no consideration money has been paid to the plaintiff as mentioned in the sale deed. 4. The defendant-purchasers appeared and contested the claim of the plaintiff. It is the case of the defendants that the sale deed has been legally and validly executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendants and the agreed consideration money has also been received by the plaintiff. 5. The trial court, on appreciation of evidence in view of the pleadings of the parties, disbelieved the case as set up by the plaintiff and dismissed the suit. In appeal, the appellate court below, on reappraisal of evidence, concurred with the findings of the trial court and dismissed the suit by the impugned judgment. 6. Mr. Verma, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the plaintiff has assailed the sale deed on two counts firstly on the ground of misrepresentation and secondly on the ground that no consideration money has been paid. It has been urged by the learned counsel that the recitals in the sale deed do not show the passing of consideration money and there is also inconsistency in the case as set up by the defendants. It has been pointed out that the defendants have come out with the case that the consideration money of Rs. 20,000/- has been paid in two installments firstly Rs. 14,000/- has been paid and thereafter Rs. Patna High Court SA No.307 of 2011 (7) dt.04-04-2013 3 6,000/- has also been paid but the sale deed as well as the pleadings of the defendants reveal otherwise. It has been canvassed by the learned counsel that both the courts below have not considered this aspect of the case and therefore substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. 7. From the facts appearing from the impugned judgments and also after consideration of the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant, it is manifest that the execution of the deed has not been denied by the plaintiff who has come out with the case that she went to the registration for execution of a deed of power of attorney in favour of Upendra Singh but by misrepresentation and fraud the sale deed in question has been got executed. However, to establish this fact that the plaintiff intended to execute the deed of power of attorney, there is no cogent evidence led by the plaintiff. It transpires from the judgments of both the courts below that paragraph-20 of the testimony of the plaintiff has been taken into notice wherein she has stated that there was no need for execution of the power of attorney. Both the courts below have also considered the other evidence in this regard and have come to the finding that the sale deed has, in fact, been executed by the plaintiff consciously and no fraud has been practised upon her in this regard. So far as the submission with regard to the passing of the consideration money is concerned the Patna High Court SA No.307 of 2011 (7) dt.04-04-2013 4 defendants have adduced in evidence the pass book of the plaintiff with regard to her account in the post office which shows the deposit of Rs. 14,000/- on 02.06.1999 and Rs. 3900/- on 04.06.1999 and corroborates the case of the defendants that out of the total consideration money, Rs. 14,000/- was paid to the plaintiff on 02.06.1999 and the rest amount of Rs. 6,000/- was paid on 03.06.1999 which she deposited in the post office account before registration of the sale deed. Although, the plaintiff has in her testimony stated that the amount deposited by her was the sale proceed of rice but no evidence has been adduced to establish availability of that amount as sale proceed of rice. The sale deed (Ext. D) shows that in the execution portion there is clear statement of the receipt of the total consideration money. Scanning the evidence on record, both the courts below have again disbelieved the case of the plaintiff that no consideration money had been paid. The concurrent findings of fact as recorded by both the courts below are based upon appreciation of evidence and do not reveal perversity in any manner. The issues arising between the parties are now concluded by concurrent findings of fact. 8. As such, there is no substantial question of law arising for consideration in this appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed. Devendra/- (Vijayendra Nath, J)