Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

10. That on the same day the Plaintiff alongwith his elder son came to district court and he was further surprised when he inquired about the sale-deed in the Registry Office through Mr. Jayant Kushwaha, Advocate and he came to know about actual cheating, fraud & forgery committed by the Defendant that he has, with the help of clerks of Registry Office or by cheating even them, removed the pages of 02 Di. document and in its place annexed another page in original with photocopy but the Defendant being in a hurry forgot to tamper with the application and affidavit that were submitted requesting for Registry; and in both these documents sale property .02 Di only is recorded.
11. That on 20.03.96, the Plaintiffs had applied for certified copy of the forged sale-deed and later they on an application got the relevant application and affidavit sealed so that the Defendant may not destroy or alter them.
12. That the concerned Sub-Registrar Mr. Patel also expressed utter surprise to the Plaintiff and his counsel over the fraud, cheating & forgery in question and sealed the papers and put them safely under the lock.
13. That actually the Plaintiff had executed document only for .02 Di land and even the Registrar had also asked the Plaintiff about the sale of .02 Di land and about Rs. 24,000/- only in consideration thereof; but after execution of registry the Defendant had placed a document and its photostat page for 24 Di that he might have got signed by the Plaintiff while getting around 200 signatures and removed the actual page for .02.
14. That the sale-deed for .02 Di executed by the Plaintiff has not remained to be in actual existence; however, if the sale-deed for .02 Di is considered valid by the court even then the claim of the Plaintiffs for the remaining portion .22 Di remains intact.
15. That at the time of execution of the sale-deed, document was kept in abeyance for lack of permission and for this reason as well the Defendant got ample opportunity to commit cheating, fraud and forgery.
16. That the Plaintiff is an illiterate, aged, sick and innocent person. Hence, he placed trust on the Defendant and put his signatures on around 200 pages prepared by the Defendant when the sale-deed only for .02 Di. was prepared by him and the contents thereof were read over to the Plaintiff.
17. That the Defendant is the neighbour of the Plaintiffs; and on his assurances the Plaintiffs placed trust on him. However, he committed cheating & fraud."

30. Thus, the case set up by plaintiff is that the document actually executed was for 2 dismal but subsequent manipulation in the record has changed it to 24 dismal. The modus operandi of above change obviously cannot be expected to be known to plaintiff and therefore, whatever fact he was expected to know or he could have known, are pleaded and rest are to be seen by this Court. It is for this reason and as pleaded also, the record of office of Sub-Registrar and Ceiling Authorities was summoned and sealed. The case set up by plaintiff is that as per his knowledge and understanding, the sale-deed was executed for transfer of 2 dismal of the land in dispute, to the defendant-appellant, but later on, he came to know that the sale-deed actually registered mentions 24 dismal. How it happened, is not very sure but it appears that some manipulation has been done in collusion with registry officials. These facts, considering the kind of fraud pleaded in this case, in my view, would constitute sufficient material facts so as to make a case of fraud and it cannot be said that the material facts are not pleaded. The arguments, advanced otherwise, by Sri Goyal, consequently, are negatived. The question no. 2 is returned in favour of the plaintiff-respondents by holding that though it cannot be doubted that a plaint must disclose requisite facts for making a case of fraud but, in the present case, those facts have been pleaded and hence the requirement of Order 6 Rule 4 is well satisfied. On that account the plaintiff cannot be non-suited.