Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(2) Abandhiya also existed. As per sale-deed itself suit land was sold to Balram (plaintiff) who had to pay Taccabi loan of Rs. 884/- taken for building such Bandhiya.

(3) A bada 0.70 acre existed with a house in which late Balram used to reside.

Balram (P.W. 1), in para 4, had claimed that there were 8 Mango trees, 60 Mahua trees, 5 Harra trees and 3 Jamun trees on suit land. In para 5 he claims that the land valued at Rs. 500/- or Rs. 1000/- per acre. Mango trees and Mahua trees were 40 years' old. Mahua trees bore crop twice in a year. Price of each mango tree and Mahua was about Rs. 500-600/-. In para 20, he admitted that land revenue was Rs. 7/-. In rainy season crop of Kodon could be taken. He had admitted that in some year crop of mango used to be lighter. Ranjan Singh (P.W. 2), in para 2, Gajru (P.W. 3) in para 2, had fully supported his statement. There has been no effective cross-examination of these witnesses on the point. Sunderlal (P.W. 4), a Revenue Inspector had been Patwari for the years 1964 to 1977 in the same village. In para 2 he has supported the case of appellant. According to him, crop worth Rs. 200/- to Rs. 500/- could be taken from each mango tree whereas Rs. 400/- to Rs. 500/- could be taken from each Mahua tree. All these trees on suit lands were fruit bearing. In para 8, he has admitted that during years 1964-67 compensation of Rs. 500/- to Rs. 2000/- was paid by the Government for each Mango and Mahua tree. Even Ram Ratan (D.W. 1) (R-2), who is father of Ram Krishna (R-l), in para 5, has admitted existence of 4-5 Mango and 30-35 Mahua trees on the suit land. According to him, he had given the price of trees only. The land had no value. In other words he himself admits that market value of suit land was much above Rs. 1500/-. In para 7, he had admitted that Mango and Mahua trees were 50 years old. Obviously these trees were fruit bearing. Though, of course, in para 8, he had denied the suggestion of the appellant that crop worth Rs. 400/- could be taken from each Mango tree. Yet from whatever evidence has come on record it was abundantly clear that the market value of 28.32 acres of suit land with fruit bearing trees and Bandhiya was many times more than Rs. 1500/- only for which the impugned sale-deed was executed.

In para 17 the First Appellate Court comments that there has been no evidence on record that a house existed on suit land and Balram (appellant) resided in it ignoring the evidence of Balram (P.W. 1), Sunderlal (P.W. 4), Girwar Singh (P.W. 5) cited above.

11. Obviously the First Appellate Court has ignored the vital evidence on record on record and misstated that there has been no evidence about the market price of the suit land and fruit bearing trees existing on it.

12. It is noteworthy that even these Rs. 1500/- were not paid in cash to the plaintiff. As per sale-deed Ex. P-8 Rs. 100/- were paid in advance, Rs. 516/-were paid before the Sub-Registrar and Rs. 884A were kept by Patel Ram Krishna (R-2). Ram Ratan (D.W. 1), in paras 3 and 4 has admitted that he has kept this amount of Rs. 884/- for three years and had paid the amount later to the Tehsildar for which no receipt has been filed by him in the Court. Balram (P.W. 1) in para 1, has claimed that Tehsildar had issued warrant of attachment against him whereupon he informed Tehsildar that such amount he was deposited with Ram Ratan (D.W. 1) who had deposited the amount after two or four days. May be Ram Krishna (R-2) has paid this amount, yet obviously the consideration was not paid in cash.

19. It is noteworthy that Balram himself in para 1 claimed that he had agreed merely to mortgage the land. It is true that being rustic he could not state the period for which the land was mortgaged and what could be the mode of repayment of loan. However, his statement was supported by Ranjan (P.W. 2), and Gajru (P.W. 3) who have claimed that Balram (P.W. 1) had merely taken loan. Ram Ratan (D.W. 1) who is respondent No. 2 himself and father of Ram Krishna (R-l) in para 2 has admitted that he had kept the land of Balram on mortgage. However, later on he has claimed that he had purchased the land. He has denied that he has been a money lender or has advanced money or loan to any body on execution of sale-deed. However, he admits that in 20-25 acres of land Gajraj is in possession for which no sale-deed is executed. He admits that there has been a mutual agreement. There has been no registered sale-deed for the same and consequently there has no mutation also. Obviously Gajraj Singh who has been the attesting witness of Ex. P-8 is under the influence of Ram Ratan (D.W. 1) and thus his non-examination by the appellant is of no consequence. Actually Gajraj Singh could have been produced by the respondents to disprove the claim of the appellant. The adverse inference drawn by the First Appellate Court against the appellant from non-examination of Gajraj Singh has not been sound. True it is that Ram Ratan (R-2) is not proved to be a money lender, yet that in itself in the facts and circumstances of the case does not disprove the case of the appellant.

22. The view taken by the learned Trial Court that the civil suit was barred by limitation was also not sound though Ex. P-8 was executed on 9-1-67. Balram (P.W. 1) in para 6 of the plaint had claimed that he came to know of the fraud in the year '77 when name of Ram Krishna (R-l) was mutated to the suit land. The civil suit was filed on 28-8-78. Balram (P.W. 1) was examined on 24-3-81. In para 22 he had admitted that in month of Asadh Ram Ratan (D.W. 1) had told him that he could not get back the land as he has sold it. Balram (P.W. 1) before that date had visited Ram Ratan (R-2). The learned Trial Court was much affected by the admission of Balram that such Asadh was 5 or 6 years before his statement was recorded. First of all this was merely an estimate of a rustic villager. No exact date was admitted of the knowledge which could well suit with the date disclosed in the plaint for the knowledge of fraud. Ex. P-9 copy of application before Debt Recovery Court was also supported the claim of Balram, thus the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court that suit was barred by limitation was incorrect. Of course Balram could have filed the civil suit only after the disclosure of fraud to him. Thus, the first question has to be answered in affirmative. I hold that finding of both the Courts below were perverse and arbitrary and the sale-deed Ex. P-1 was vitiated by fraud and was null and void.