High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Ram Dulari v. Dharam Raj - SECOND APPEAL No. - 991 of 2007  RD-AH 16084 (27 September 2007)
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Second Appeal No. 991 of 2007
Ram Dulari Vs. Dharam Prakash
Hon. Dilip Gupta, J.
The plaintiff has filed this Second Appeal for setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Court No.2, Siddharth Nagar by which the Civil Appeal that had been filed by the plaintiff was dismissed.
The Original Suit had been filed for cancellation of the registered sale deed executed on 3rd October, 1994 by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant. It was alleged in the plaint that the sale deed had not been executed by the plaintiff. She wanted to execute a will deed in favour of the defendant and had gone to the office of the Sub-Registrar to execute the will deed but the defendant by taking advantage of his position got the sale deed executed and registered. It was also stated that her photograph was taken and she was asked to sit at a particular place.
Issue No.2 had been framed by the Trial Court as to whether the plaintiff had executed the sale deed in favour of the defendant. The Courts below have noticed that the plaintiff had gone to the office of the Sub-Registrar, she had put her thumb impression on the sale deed and photograph was also affixed. The Sub-Registrar had also made an endorsement that the sale deed had been explained to the plaintiff who had put her thumb impression. The attesting witness Shiv Karan was examined on behalf of the defendant who duly proved the execution of the sale deed. It was also found that the plaintiff was not a Pardanashin lady.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in fact the plaintiff was asked to put her thumb impression on blank stamp papers and thereafter she was asked to sit outside the office of the Sub-Registrar as assurance was given by the defendant that he would get the will deed prepared. He, therefore, submitted that the sale deed was liable to be set aside particularly when the plaintiff was an old lady of 70 years of age.
This contention of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. The Courts below have recorded a finding that even earlier she had purchased this property from Raja Saheb and was well aware about the procedure for execution of the sale deed. The Courts below have also recorded a categorical finding that the the plaintiff appeared before the Sub-Registrar and had put her thumb impression in his presence and the attesting witness had duly proved the sale deed. Cogent reasons have been given by the Courts below for arriving at the conclusion that the sale deed had been executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant and no material has been placed before the Court to show that the said findings are perverse.
Learned counsel for the appellant has also placed reliance upon a decision of this Court in Ram Lakhan & Anr. Vs. Ghurahoo, 2006 (101) RD 479. The said decision is of no benefit to the appellant because the Court on the basis of the evidence came to the conclusion that the defendant was in a dominating position and the transaction was unconscionable.
The Second Appeal is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage as no substantial question of law, much less a question of law, arises for consideration. It is, accordingly, dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.