1 - Lobhan S/o Firanta Kurmi Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Saigona Tahsil v. 1 - Peru S/o Paklu Kurmi Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Saigona Tahsil
Case Details
Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.09.26 18:34:52 +0530 1 2025:CGHC:49479 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 92 of 2004 1 - Lobhan S/o Firanta Kurmi Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Saigona Tahsil Chhattisgarh Saja District Durg 2 - Firanta (Died) Through Lrs As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 10-12-2024 2.1 - Sahodra Bai D/o Firana H/o Narayan Verma Aged About 48 Years R/o Village - Kachhuva, Thana - Kharasara, Tahsil And District Bemetara Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Peru S/o Paklu Kurmi Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Saigona Tahsil Chhattisgarh Saja District Durg 2 - Suraj Bai W/o Sukhu Kurmi Aged About 70 Years R/o Village Chirenga Chhattisgarh Post Damakheda Tahsil Simga District Raipur 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Durg Chhattisgarh
Legal Reasoning
4 - Bhav Singh S/o Late Firanta Aged About 48 Years R/o Village - Baigona, Tahsil - Saja, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellants
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Bharat Rajput, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : None, though served For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Trevenee Shankar Sahu, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 26-09-2025 2 1) This second appeal has been preferred under Section 100 of CPC, 1908 by defendants No. 1 and 2 against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Second Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Bemetara, District – Durg in Civil Appeal No. 7-A/2003 dated 14.11.2003, whereby the appeal preferred by the plaintiff was decreed. This second appeal was admitted for hearing on 21.11.2005 on the fol- lowing substantial question of law:- (i) Whether the finding of the trial Court that the sale deed of Ex.D-1, was got executed by practising fraud upon the executants, is based on misreading of the evidence available on record and as such perverse ? 2) The family tree of the parties is reproduced herein below :- Mankuwar Firanta Peru Surjabai ( Defendant No. 2) (Plaintiff) (dead) Lobhan (Defendant No. 1) 3) Facts of the present case are that the suit property bearing Khasra No. 96 and 353, P.H. No. 3/2 situated at Village Saigona, Tehsil Saja ; total ad-measuring 0.44 hectare was recorded in the name of Lt. Mankuwar. She had acquired that property from her parents. Original Plaintiff, namely, Peru S/o Paklu filed civil suit for declara - tion of title, partition and possession over the suit property inter-alia on the ground that the registered sale-deed dated 27.12.1995, executed by Lt. Mankuwar in favor of original defendant No. 1, namely, Lobhan S/o Firanta Kurmi is not binding on him and same is outcome of fraud. Plaintiff further pleaded that as the property was exclusive property of his mother, therefore plaintiff, Firanta and Surjabai have 1/3rd right over 3 it. It was also pleaded that physical and mental condition of Lt. Mankuwar three years prior to her death was not good ; her eye-sight was also week and she was bedridden ; she died on 08.09.1997 at the age of 83, thus she was not fit to execute the sale-deed in favor of de- fendant No. 1 – Lobhan. 4) Defendants No.1 and 2 filed written statement and denied plaint aver- ments. It was pleaded in the written statement that Lt. Mankuwar was the exclusive owner and possession holder of the suit property and she had right to alienate it. It was further pleaded that the registered sale- deed dated 27.12.1995 was executed in the O/o Sub-Registrar, Be- metara, District – Durg for sale-consideration of Rs. 49,500/- in pres- ence of witnesses : Baliram Singh and Ganpat Verma. It was also pleaded that physical and mental condition of Lt. Mankuwar was good at the time of execution of sale-deed and her sight was also good. 5) Learned Trial Court framed issues ; parties led evidence and learned Trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 10.03.2000 holding that Lt. Mankuwar had right to execute the sale- deed and same was not an outcome of fraud. Plaintiff preferred first ap- peal and learned First Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 14.11.2003, set aside the judgment passed by learned Trial Court and decreed the suit. During pendency of this second appeal, original de- fendant No. 2, namely, Firanta died, therefore this appeal is being con- tested by defendant No. 1 – Lobhan and widow of Firanta. 6) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant – defendant No. 1 submits that there is admission on the part of plaintiff himself that the suit prop- erty was exclusive property of Lt. Mankuwar and plaintiff could not prove that registered sale-deed dated 27.12.1995 was an outcome of 4 fraud and undue influence. He further submits that registered sale-deed was executed by Lt. Mankuwar in the O/o Sub-Registrar, Bemetara, District – Durg for sale-consideration of Rs. 49,500/- in presence of wit- nesses : Baliram Singh and Ganpat Verma on 27.12.1995. He con- tends that one of the witnesses to the sale-deed has been examined by defendant No. 1 to prove due execution of sale-deed but the learned First Appellate Court committed error of law while reversing the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court with regard to due execution of sale-deed. He further submits that in the evidence led by plaintiff, there is no whisper with regard to fraud or undue influence in execution of sale-deed, therefore findings recorded by the learned First Appellate Court are perverse. He prays to allow this appeal. 7) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 – original plaintiff opposes. He submits that learned First Appellate Court has considered the evidence led by the parties. He further sub- mits that as per pleadings made in the plaint as well as written state- ment and evidence led by the parties, it is not in dispute that routinely Lt. Mankuwar used to stay for 15 days with plaintiff and 15 days with defendant No. 1. He contends that plaintiff’s witnesses have categori- cally deposed that physical and mental condition of Lt. Mankuwar three years prior to her death was not good and her mental status was not fit to execute the sale-deed in favor of defendant No. 1. He further con- tends that financial condition of Lt. Mankuwar was sound, therefore there was no reason for her to sell out the suit property and defendant No. 1 has also not proved the source of his income to purchase the property for sale consideration of Rs. 49,500/- as he used to work as labour in Durg earning Rs. 30-40/- per day. He argues that sale-deed 5 was an outcome of fraud and undue influence, therefore learned First Appellate Court reversed the findings recorded by the Trial Court and rightly decreed the suit filed by plaintiff. 8) Learned State counsel supports the order impugned. 9) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10) Admittedly, the suit property was recorded in the name of Lt. Mankuwar and she was the exclusive owner and possession holder of that prop- erty. She executed registered sale-deed in favor of defendant No. 1 on 27.12.1995 (Exhibit -D/1) for sale-consideration of Rs. 49,500/-. One of the attesting witnesses, namely, Ganpat Verma has been examined by defendant No. 1 to prove the due execution of sale-deed. This witness has categorically stated that the sale-deed was signed and executed by Lt. Mankuwar in presence of witnesses including him. In cross-ex- amination, this witness has admitted that Lt. Mankuwar stated that sale consideration was paid to her in advance. 11) With regard to fraud and undue influence, plaintiff’s witnesses have stated that physical and mental condition of Lt. Mankuwar three years prior to her death was not good and she was bedridden and her eye- sight was also weak, thus she was not in condition to execute the sale- deed. On the contrary, witness examined by defendant No. 1 have stated that medical condition of Lt. Mankuwar was good and her eye- sight was also good. 12) Except oral averments and statements, there is no documentary evi- dence on record to prove the medical condition of Lt. Mankuwar, there- fore it cannot be presumed only on the basis of oral evidence it cannot be held that medical condition of Lt. Mankuwar was not good. 6 13) Evidently, Lt. Mankuwar appeared before Sub-Registrar, Bemetara for execution of registered sale-deed dated 27.12.1995, which contains her thumb impression and same was verified by the Sub-Registrar. The attesting witness, namely, Ganpat Verma has proved due execution of sale-deed. In cross-examination, this witness has stated that Lt. Mankuwar herself declared that sale-consideration was passed to her prior to execution of sale-deed. 14) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, it is quite clear that plaintiff has not placed any material on record to prove fraud and undue influence, therefore in the opinion of this Court, learned First Ap- pellate Court misread the evidence available on record and reversed the findings recorded by Trial Court. Accordingly, the substantial ques- tion of law is answered in affirmative and in favor of appellant herein/ defendant No. 1 and 2. 15) In result, the judgment and decree passed by learned First Appellate Court is hereby set aside and instant second appeal stands allowed. 16) A decree be drawn accordingly. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a