Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. The defence of these defendant 2nd party in short is that when the plaintiff came to know about the sale deed in favour of defendant No.4 and gift deeds in favour of defendant No.5 to 7, he in collusion Ram Pratap and Dhaniklal created a forged and fabricated document, i.e., sale deed by antedating it. In fact after purchase and gift, the defendant 2nd party came in possession of the property purchased and donated to them. These defendants have no knowledge about any sale deed or contract between plaintiff and Ram Pratap and Dhaniklal Mahto. The alleged hand note dated 30.06.1970 and the alleged payment by the plaintiff to Ramjee Mahto and Shyam Sunder Mahto is denied by these defendants. Purchasing of stamp of Rs.333/- by Ram Pratap and Dhaniklal was denied. The allegation that Ram Patna High Court FA No.517 of 1981 dt.06-10-2015 Pratap fell ill was also denied. The further case is that Ramji Mahto and Shyam Sunder Mahto are close relation of the plaintiff. The alleged hand notes are forged and fabricated document and are also antedated Ram Pratap and Dhaniklal never took loan from Shyam Sunder Mahto and Ramji Mahto. All these documents have been created subsequently by the plaintiff. No consideration at all was paid by the plaintiff to Ram Pratap and Dhaniklal for execution of the sale deed in question. On these grounds prayer was also made for dismissing the suit.