Meera Devi and Others vs Asha Devi and Others

Shishir Kumar, J.—Heard learned Counsel for Appellants.

This is a Plaintiffs'' second appeal arising out of suit for cancellation of sale deed executed by the mother of Plaintiffs in favour of Respondent No. 3.

Allegations made in the plaint was that this property belongs to one Deep Narain. Smt. Phoolmati Devi is the mother of Plaintiffs. Allegation was made that as there was no son to Sri Deep Narain, therefore, during his life time will was executed on 12.10.1987 in favour of mother Smt.Phoolmati to the effect that during her life time she will enjoy the property and after her death, property will devolve equally having 1/4th share among all four daughters. Therefore, Smt. Phoolmati was having no right to execute sale deed and if any sale deed was executed i.e. void and illegal. Defendant after receipt of notice of the suit filed their written statement denying allegations made, stating therein that Deep Narain, husband of Smt. Phoolmati during his life time married two daughters but daughter Asha could not be married and after death of Sri Deep Narain, Asha was married. As after death of Deep Narain, Smt. Phoolmati was not being maintained by the daughters properly, as such, sale deed was executed in favour of Defendant after receipt of proper amount.

Trial court has framed various issues and one of the issues was whether sale deeds dated 3.3.1997 and 9.12.1997 are liable to be cancelled and whether Smt. Phoolmati can execute sale deed in favour of Defendant. On behalf of Plaintiffs, copy of sale deed, will dated 12.10.1987 and death certificate of Deep Narain were produced. On behalf of Defendant D.W.1 Smt. Usha Devi w/o Ram Prasad, DW-2 Smt. Phoolmati w/o Sri Deep Narain and D.W.-3 Sri Lalji have been examined. Trial court after considering Issue No. 1 has recorded a finding that as on 12.10.1987 a will was executed, therefore, Smt. Phoolmati was not having any right to execute sale deed during her life time. After recording such finding, trial court has decreed the suit vide its judgment and order dated 5.4.2008.

Aggrieved by aforesaid judgment, Defendant filed an appeal. Before the Appellate Court Smt. Phoolmati was produced as D.W.2 and on oath she has submitted that on 24.2.1997 with the consent of her two daughters i.e. Usha and Asha who were Defendants in the suit, went to Registration Office and after going through the contents of sale deed has executed the sale deed and put her thumb impression. No fraud has been committed. This sale deed has been executed for repaying the loan as well as for her personal expenditure. Suit has been filed by her daughters Meera and Radha on forged document. No will was ever executed by Deep Narain at any time and if any will is there that is a forged document. The Appellate Court after considering statement and other documents has come to conclusion that there is no occasion to disbelieve the statement of DW-2 who has executed a sale deed in favour of Defendants. Will of Deep Narain has not been proved by Plaintiffs, therefore, legally Smt. Phoolmati was having right to execute sale deed after receiving due consideration.

In my opinion, finding recorded by court below is perfectly correct based on evidence after considering statement of Smt. Phoolmati, therefore, needs no interference. As there is no substantial question of law involved in the present appeal. Therefore, the appeal is hereby dismissed.

No order as to costs.