Saheb Ram Alias Sadhu vs Ram Charitra And Ors.
2025 Latest Caselaw 9054 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Saheb Ram Alias Sadhu vs Ram Charitra And Ors. on 16 April, 2025

Author: Abdul Moin

Bench: Abdul Moin

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:21327
 
Court No. - 5
 

 
Case :- SECOND APPEAL No. - 132 of 2016
 

 
Appellant :- Saheb Ram Alias Sadhu
 
Respondent :- Ram Charitra And Ors.
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Brijesh Kumar,Aftab Ahmad,Brijesh Kumar
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Syed Asghar Mehdi,Shri Syed Asghar Mehdi
 

 
Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.
 

1. Heard Sri Brijesh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, and Sri Syed Asghar Mehdi, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Instant second appeal has been filed raising a challenge to the judgment and decree dated 14.01.2016 passed by learned District Judge, Balrampur, in re: Saheb Ram alias Sadhu vs. Ram Charitra and others as well as judgment and decree dated 21.08.2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Utraula, Balrampur in re: Smt. Kuta (died) 1/1-Saheb Ram vs. Ram Charitra and others.

3. The substantial question of law as framed by this Court for consideration of this appeal as enunciated vide order dated 14.12.2021 is as follows:-

"Whether in case of an executant, who is an illiterate, blind and old woman, burden of proof is reversed requiring the beneficiary of a document executed by her to prove by affirmative evidence that the executant entered into the transaction and executed the deed after a full understanding of its nature and contents.?"

4. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts of the case revolve around a sale deed registered on 05.10.1989 and executed by Smt. Kuta on 18.03.1989.

5. Admittedly, Smt. Kuta, the executant of the registered sale deed is said to be an old, illiterate and partially blind person.

6. A suit for cancellation of the said sale deed which pertains to Gata No.51 area 2.467 acres was filed by Smt. Kuta in April, 1993. Smt. Kuta died on 22.08.1993 and has been substituted by her legal representatives.

7. The suit for cancellation of the sale deed which suit was registered as Original Suit No.204 of 1993 was filed by contending that as Smt. Kuta was an old, illiterate and almost blind lady consequently she was misled in executing the said sale deed on the basis of faith which was reposed by her on the defendants in the said suit.

8. During pendency of the suit the defendants put in appearance and filed certified copies of the plaint of Original Suit No.106 of 1989 in re: Saheb Ram and another vs. Mst. Kuta and others before the learned Munsif Utraula District Gonda which was filed for the purpose of seeking permanent injunction with respect to the same piece of land as involved in Original Suit No.204 of 1993. Along with the Feharist which was filed on 10.11.1998 the certified copy of the plaint of the Suit No.106 of 1989 along with the written statement that had been filed by Mst. Kuta was also brought on record. The learned trial court vide judgment dated 21.08.2014, after considering the said written statement that had been filed by Smt. Kuta in which she indicated of she having executed the sale deed for the aforesaid piece of land by taking consideration, was of the view that the issue no.1 which pertained to as to whether the sale deed in question merits to be cancelled, decided the said issue against Smt. Kuta and dismissed the suit filed by her.

9. As already indicated above, while dismissing the suit, Smt. Kuta having filed the written statement in an earlier suit whereby indicating that the said sale deed had been executed by her, was taken as an ample proof by learned trial court of Smt. Kuta having willingly executed the said sale deed.

10. Upon an appeal being filed by the legal heirs of Smt. Kuta namely Civil Appeal No.28 of 2014 in re; Saheb Ram vs. Ram Charitra and another, the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal finding no infirmity with the judgment passed by learned trial court.

11. Being aggrieved, instant second appeal has been filed.

12. The substantial question of law as enunciated by this Court has already been indicated above which, for the sake of convenience, is again reproduced below:-

"Whether in case of an executant, who is an illiterate, blind and old woman, burden of proof is reversed requiring the beneficiary of a document executed by her to prove by affirmative evidence that the executant entered into the transaction and executed the deed after a full understanding of its nature and contents.?"

13. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued on the basis of supplementary affidavit dated 30.07.2019 that the Suit No.106 of 1989 had been filed in the court of learned Munsif Utraula, District Gonda on behalf of the plaintiffs therein by Sri Om Prakash @ O.P. Singh Advocate in the fake name of the deceased appellant Saheb Ram & Bechai by manipulating things and facts in his own way and in collusion with the respondents in which neither Saheb Ram nor Bechai put the signatures. The written statement was filed on behalf of Smt Kuta and respondents by Sri Sadanand Srivastava and the said suit was dismissed on 22.05.1999 for non prosecution and thereafter record of the said suit was misplaced.

14. It is further contended that Om Prakash @ O.P. Singh Advocate thereafter appeared on behalf of respondent No.1 in the first appeal that had been filed by Shri Saheb Ram. Sri O.P. Singh had also appeared on behalf of respondents/defendants in the original suit no.204 of 1993 which had been decided against the appellants.

15. The further argument on the basis of the supplementary affidavit is that efforts were made to trace out the file of Regular Suit No.106 of 1989 by the concerned clerk in the month of April, 2019 and thereafter the appellant got the certified copy of the above documents and has now filed the same by means of the supplementary affidavit.

16. Placing reliance on the averments contained in the supplementary affidavit the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that a forgery was committed by the respondents herein by impersonating Smt Kuta before the learned trial court in Original Suit No.106 of 1989 which aspect of the matter should have been considered both by the learned trial court and the learned first appellate court more particularly when it has been contended in the suit which has been filed by Smt Kuta for cancellation of the sale deed that she was an old, illiterate and a partially blind lady and she could not have executed the said sale deed willingly and that on the basis of the trust that had been placed by Smt Kuta on the defendants in the said suit they manipulated the said sale deed but all these aspects of the matter have not been considered by the learned trial court and the learned first appellate court by initially dismissing the suit which had been filed by Smt Kuta and thereafter dismissing the appeal which has been filed by the legal heirs of Smt Kuta.

17. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Keshav & Ors vs Gian Chand & Anr : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 81 to contend that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a similar matter has held that where sale deeds are executed by old, illiterate, ailing or infirm person who may be unable to comprehend the nature of the documents or contents thereof, then onus of proving that the execution was voluntary and in exercise of unfettered will is on the person in whose favour said document has been executed.

18. Reliance has also been placed on the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Krishna Mohan Kul @ Nani Charan Kul & Anr vs Pratima Maity & Ors : (2004) 9 SCC 468 and Mst. Kharbuja Kuer vs Jangbahadur Rai : (1963) 1 SCR 456.

19. Thus, it is argued that the judgments passed by the learned trial court and the learned first appellate court merit to be set aside.

20. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has argued that there cannot be any dispute to the proposition of law as enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Keshav (supra), Krishna Mohan Kul (supra) and Mst. Kharbuja Kuer (supra).

21. He, however, has argued that even if for the sake of arguments the supplementary affidavit dated 30.07.2019 as filed on behalf of the appellant pertaining to the Original Suit No.106 of 1989 having been filed in a manipulative and collusive manner is taken to be gospel truth yet the fact of the matter remains that when Smt Kuta filed Original Suit No.204 of 1993 for cancellation of the sale deed, the defendants had brought on record the certified copies of the plaint of the Original Suit No.106 of 1989 that had been filed by the defendants against Smt Kuta for permanent injunction pertaining to the same piece of land for which the sale deed had been executed by Smt Kuta and the written statement that had been filed by Smt Kuta wherein she had specifically averred that the said sale deed had been willingly executed by her. The certified copy of the plaint and written statement had been filed by means of feharist on 10.11.1998 as per paper number 28Ga/7-12 which is available on the original record of the learned trial court which fact was never denied by Smt Kuta before the learned trial court and which has prevailed on the learned trial court while dismissing the original suit filed by Smt Kuta.

22. So far as Original Suit No.106 of 1989 being a manipulated and collusive suit is concerned, it is contended that the said plea was neither taken before the learned trial court by Smt Kuta nor before the learned first appellate court and once the learned trial court was having certified copies of the plaint and written statement of original suit no.106 of 1989 wherein Smt Kuta had categorically averred of she having executed the sale deed in question, consequently no illegality or infirmity has been committed either by the learned trial court or by the learned first appellate court in initially rejecting the suit filed by Smt Kuta and thereafter rejecting the appeal filed by the legal heirs of Smt Kuta.

23. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.

24. From perusal of the record, it emerges that the controversy revolves around the sale deed registered on 05.10.1989 for the land in dispute as detailed above. Smt Kuta filed a suit for cancellation of the sale deed in the year 1993 on ground of she being an old, illiterate and partially blind lady who could not have executed the said sale deed. Before the learned trial court the defendants brought on record the certified copies of the plaint and written statement of an earlier Suit No.106 of 1989 wherein Smt Kuta in the capacity of being a defendant had filed a written statement and had duly indicated that she herself had executed the sale deed in question. This prevailed on the learned trial court in dismissing the suit filed by Smt Kuta and on the first appellate court in dismissing the appeal filed by the legal heirs of Smt Kuta (Smt Kuta having died on 22.03.1993 during pendency of the Original Suit before the learned trial court).

25. It is only for the first time in the second appeal that a supplementary affidavit dated 30.07.2019 has been filed by the appellant herein contending that Original Suit No.106 of 1989 was filed in a manipulative and collusive manner and the learned counsel who had appeared on behalf of Smt Kuta in Original Suit No.106 of 1989 appeared for the defendants in the suit filed by Smt. Kuta which itself indicates the manipulation and collusion which has been conducted by the learned counsels who had appeared on behalf of the defendants. However, a perusal of the judgment passed by the learned appellate court indicates that although a bald plea was taken in this regard by the appellants but the same was rejected by the learned appellate court on the ground that no evidence in this regard was led by the appellants.

26. There could have been some semblance of truth or some weight in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant but for the fact that the certified copies of the plaint and written statement of Suit No.106 of 1989 was filed by the defendant in the Original Suit which had been filed by Smt Kuta for cancellation of the said sale deed. The said documents were filed on 10.11.1998. Incidentally, neither the filing of the said suit nor the written statement in which Smt Kuta had categorically admitted execution of the sale deed in question was ever denied by Smt Kuta in the original suit filed by her nor in the first appeal filed by legal heirs of Smt Kuta except to the extent indicated above. It is only now that such a plea has been taken before this Court in the instant appeal filed in the year 2016 by filing a supplementary affidavit in the year 2019.

27. As already stated above, the certified copies of the aforesaid documents were filed before the learned trial court in the year 1998 but the supplementary affidavit has been filed before this Court in the year 2019 after a period of 21 years. The only ground which emerges from perusal of the said affidavit before this Court is that the records of the original Suit No.106 of 1989 had gone missing and could only be traced out after herculean efforts being made by the appellant and after various complaints having been submitted. There is nothing on record to indicate that when the certified copies of the said documents were filed before the learned trial court on 10.11.1998 as to what prevented the appellant from going through the file of the Original Suit No.106 of 1989 or for filing of a rebuttal thereof and nothing emerges as to why efforts were not made to bring on record anything to indicate that Original Suit No.106 of 1989 was filed in a manipulative and collusive manner or for that matter the written statement that had been filed by Smt Kuta was filed in a manipulative and collusive manner in order to benefit the defendant of the suit that had been filed by Smt Kuta.

28. Although the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Keshav (supra) has been of the view that the onus of proving that the execution of a document made by an old, illiterate, ailing or inform person may shift on the person who is benefited therefrom but the said principle of law would not be applicable in the instant case keeping in view the written statement that had been filed by Smt. Kuta wherein she herself had indicated execution of the said sale deed.

29. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion no case for interference is made out. Accordingly, the second appeal is dismissed.

30. Further, considering the order passed by this Court dated 14.12.2021 which pertains to the sale of the standing sugarcane crop, the respondents shall be entitled for the said sale proceeds in accordance with law.

31. The records be returned back as per procedure.

Order Date :- 16.4.2025

A. Katiyar