9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 1161X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the First Appellate Court on any of the above issues, in which concurrent findings have been rendered against the Appellants, both by the Trial court as well as the learned Single Judge. Indeed, the concept of unilateral cancellation of a sale deed, which has been duly registered, is unheard of. Even otherwise, it lacks legal sanctity. The only way to prove that a sale deed was not duly executed would be by leading evidence in the civil court. Despite being provided with sufficient opportunity, the Appellants- Defendants have been unable to establish their case that the registered sale deed in question had been executed through undue influence or coercion.The Court is unable to find any error committed by the learned Single Judge and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resent for the Respondents. 6. The original Plaintiff and the original Defendant are the first and second wife respectively of late Nimaji Khan who is stated to have purchased Ac.0.164 decs. of land situated in the Northern side of Plot No.334 belonging to one Karim Khan and Fakir Khan, in the name of the Defendant on 13th May, 1947 under a Registered Sale Deed dated 13th May, 1947. On 17th May, 1965 the Defendant sold the said property to the Plaintiff for a consideration of ₹ 200/- by executing a Registered Sale Deed. The Plaintiff claimed to be in continuous possession of the property in question as the owner since then. 7. The case of the Plaintiff is that, she gave the sale deed to her husband for getting her name mutated. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the trial Court for consideration. Of these, issue No.6 was whether the sale deed dated 17th May, 1968 was a nominal one; issue No.8 was whether the Plaintiff has got right, title and interest and possession over the suit land; and issue No.9 was whether the Plaintiff is entitled to any relief. 11. The finding of the Trial Court was that the Defendant had executed the aforementioned sale deed voluntarily. Even in the deed of cancellation she did not aver that she did not know about the contents of the sale deed. The trial Court held that the sale deed was not vitiated by any misrepresentation or coercion by the husband of the Defendant as alleged by her. It was for due consideration and not a nominal one. Therefore, the title had vali ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was declared to be illiterate but not a Pardanashin lady, her plea of being coerced by her husband into agreeing to execute the sale deed was disbelieved by the trial Court as it was not bases on any evidence. 15. The learned Single Judge discussed the evidence led and disbelieved the case of the Defendant that the registered sale deed was vitiated by fraud and coercion. 16. Having heard the submissions of Mr. Soumya Dev Ray, learned counsel for the Appellants, this Court is unable to come a conclusion different from that reached by the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court on any of the above issues, in which concurrent findings have been rendered against the Appellants, both by the Trial court as well as the learned Sin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
