JUDGMENT - CHAPALGAONKER N.P., J.:---Plaintiff, a window, filed a suit to avoid two registered sale-deeds which she had executed in favour of one Loknathsing on 19-5-1977 selling 8 Acres and 16 gunthas portion from Survey No. 37 and 3 Acres and 28 Gunthas land of Survey No. 71/A/1 situated at village Wangi. Plaintiff contends that the said property was originally owned by Shankarrao, her husband, who had received it as gift from his maternal grandmother, Bhagubai. Shankarrao died in the year 1948 and after his death plaintiff became owner of this property as sole owner as Shankarrao's widow. It is her case that since Jaiwantrao, father-in-law of the plaintiff, had started some proceedings against the plaintiff in order to grab the property and since her father was not well-versed with the Court procedure, after the death of her husband and during the lifetime of her father, Loknathsingh, father of defendant-appellants Nos. 1, 2 and 5 and husband of the defendant-appellant No. 4 started assisting plaintiff in this litigation. It is also her case that he assisted her in the cultivation of the said lands also. Particularly after the death of her father, plaintiff alleges that, she came in further close contact of Loknathsingh and developed sexual intimacy. Sometime in the year 1960, plaintiff shifted to Gangakhed since villagers in Wangi enraged because of the closeness of Loknathsingh with the plaintiff and Loknathsing continued to visit plaintiff even at Gangakhed. Though there was no necessity for selling the suit lands, plaintiff executed sale-deeds of both these lands without receiving any consideration therefor. Plaintiff, therefore, wants to avoid the sale-deeds by seeking cancellation of the registered sale-deeds.

2. Loknathsingh died on 22-8-1979 and Special Civil Suit No. 23/1979 by Gayabai came to be filed thereafter in the month of October, 1979. Defendants have denied the above contention. As per their contention, plaintiff was supported by her father and brother and their advice was always available to her. The sexual intimacy of Loknathsingh with plaintiff has been denied and it was contended that the purchase was for the regular market price and the sale-deeds in question are effective and binding.

3. On these pleadings, learned Civil Judge (S.D.) Parbhani, was pleased to hold that the two sale-deeds in question were the result of the undue influence exercised by Loknathsingh over the plaintiff and no consideration is received by the plaintiff therefor. He was pleased to decree the suit by declaring that both the registered sale-deeds are ineffective and inoperative. He directed that the plaintiff be put in possession of the suit lands with further directions about the enquiry of future mesne profits under Order XX, Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Defendants have challenged this decree dated 27th March, 1985.

4. Shri S.N. Loya, learned Counsel appearing for appellants/defendants, submitted that there is no proof of sexual intimacy between the plaintiff and Loknathsingh and the bare word of the plaintiff in this respect cannot be believed. He further submitted that there is no even a whisper regarding exercise of undue influence by Loknathsingh either in the pleadings or proof and, therefore, the decree passed by the trial Court deserves to be set aside. Sri C.G. Solshe, learned Counsel appearing for respondent/plaintiff, supported the decree and contended that the record amply shows that Loknathsingh helped plaintiff in the litigation and in the cultivation and both of them were living as husband and wife at least for some time. Therefore, it can be inferred that Loknathsingh was in a position to dominate the will of plaintiff who is an illiterate widow and in such case, an inference of exercise of undue influence will have to be drawn and it would then be the duty of the defendant to show that no undue influence was exercised. In this respect, defendant has not led any positive evidence and, therefore,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document