The main legal point established in the judgment is that a suit for possession without a specific claim for setting aside the sale deeds is not maintainable, and that vague allegations of fraud without sufficient evidence are insufficient to prove the alleged fraud.

JUDGMENT:- The appellant herein is original defendant No.2. The appellant is aggrieved by judgment rendered by the first appellate Court, confirming the trial Court's decree, with little modification, holding that Respondent Nos.1 to 3 i.e. original plaintiffs are entitled to relief of declaration that the sale deeds executed by plaintiff No.1 Kausalyabai are inoperative and were obtained by playing fraud and hence, the plaintiffs are entitled to recover possession of the suit properties alongwith mesne profits.

2. For sake of convenience, I shall refer to the parties by their nomenclature in the trial Court. The Respondent No.1 Kausalya was plaintiff No.1. Respondent No.2 Sarangdhar is her son and was plaintiff Wo.2, whereas Respondent No.3 Asrabai is her daughter and was plaintiff No.3 in the trial Court. They filed suit (R.C.S. No.40/90) for declaration to the effect that the sale deeds executed by the plaintiff No.1 are not binding on them. They sought recovery of possession of the suit properties consisting of agricultural lands and share to the extent of two annas in mango trees as described in Schedule appended with the plaint.

3. Originally one Gangaram Korde held the suit properties. He was husband of plaintiff No.1 Kausalya and father of plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 - Sarangdhar and Asrabai. He died somewhere in 1979-80.

4. Briefly stated, the plaintiffs' case is that the defendant No.2 - Kisan played fraud on the plaintiff No.1. He took her to Parbhani, the District place, under pretext that she would be assisted in borrowing loan from a Cooperative Society. There was no legal necessity for alienation of the suit properties. The defendant No.1 obtained a sale deed in respect of S.NoA5 to the extent of 2 hectares land in his favour without payment of consideration. Thereafter, the defendant Nos.3 and 5 assured plaintiff No.1- Kausalya that they would secure restoration of her land and would incur necessary expenditure required for the purpose of litigation. They obtained a sale deed without consideration from her in respect of land S.No.37 as well a sale deed in respect of 2 annas share in 17 mango trees. They got inducted themselves in possession of the said lands without any legal right. The sale deeds are out come of fraud played on the plaintiff No.1. The plaintiff No.1 could not have transferred the suit properties which are owned by the minor plaintiff Nos.2 and 3. Consequently, they sought recovery of possession of the suit properties and declaration to the effect that the sale deeds in question were not binding on them.

5. By filing common written statement (Exh.22) the defendant Nos.1 and 2 resisted the suit. So also the defendant Nos.3 and 5 resisted the suit by filing a written statement (Exh.66). They denied truth into all material averments made by the plaintiff. Assertion of the defendants was that the plea of alleged fraud is vague and untenable. They submitted that the plaintiff No.1 - Kausalya was in a habit of alienating the properties of the family in order to meet domestic needs. According to them, the plaintiffs were in need of finance due to variety of reasons, including the fact that deceased Gangaram Korde had died and there was no elder member in the family to manage the cultivation of the suit lands. They averred that the plaintiff No.1 was in need of money to perform 13th day post death rites of her husband, in accordance with the tradition in the rural area, and also later on needed money to perform marriage of plaintiff No.3 - Asrabai. They submitted that the alienations were effected on account of legal necessity and that the plaintiff No.1 was acting as Manager of the fami1y at the relevant time. They denied that the suit properties were owned by the minors. They further contended that the suit was barred by limitation. They denied truth into the allegation that the sale deeds are without consideration. They urged, therefore, to dismiss the suit.

6. The parties went to trial over issues framed belo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document