JUDGMENT :

MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL, J.

1. This civil second appeal has been preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs against the judgment and decree dated 19.11.2008 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Bayana, District Bharatpur (for brevity ‘the learned appellate court’) in CAR No. 34/1999 whereby, while dismissing the appeal, the judgment and decree dated 27.10.1999 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Bayana, Bharatpur (for brevity-’the learned trial court) dismissing the civil suit no. 129/1999 filed for cancellation of sale deed and permanent injunction, has been upheld.

2. The relevant facts in brief are that Shri Radhey Lal, the predecessor in interest of the appellants (hereinafter referred to as ‘the plaintiff’) filed a suit against Smt. Laxmi Devi, the predecessor in interest of the respondents no. 1/1 to 1/4 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the defendant no. 1’) and the respondents no. 2 and 3 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the defendants no. 2 and 3) stating therein that he has executed a registered will dated 28.5.1973 of his entire movable and immovable properties including the subject house as described in para 3 of the plaint, in favour of his five sons. It was averred that the defendant no. 2, his son, brought him from Bayana to Bharatpur on 3.12.1980 to get his eyes examined where he got some documents signed from him which were kept by him. It was stated that on 8.12.1980, he came to know that the defendant no. 2 has, fraudulently taking undue advantage of his old age, got executed a registered sale deed of the subject house in favour of the defendant no. 1, his wife, for a sale consideration of Rs.5,000 which was never received by him. Therefore, the decree for cancellation of sale deed and permanent injunction was prayed for.

3. The defendants no. 1 and 2 in their joint written statement submitted that the will was cancelled on 3.12.1980. It was averred that on the insistence of the plaintiff himself, the defendant no. 1 agreed to purchase the subject property for which she paid the sale consideration of Rs.5,000 from her own fund as she was employed as the Headmistress in the Government job.

4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed four issues including reliefs.

5. After recording evidence of the respective parties, the learned trial court dismissed the suit vide its judgment dated 27.10.1999 deciding all the issues against the plaintiff. The civil first appeal preferred thereagainst by the plaintiff has been dismissed by the learned appellate court vide its judgment and decree dated 19.11.2008.

6. Assailing the impugned judgment and decree dated 19.11.2008, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that findings of the learned courts on issue no. 1 are perverse inasmuch as both the courts have held that the allegation levelled by the plaintiff’s witnesses during the course of their deposition of taking the plaintiff to Bharatpur under the false pretext of examination of his eye is not averred in the plaint whereas, in its para 7, it is specifically stated that the defendant no. 2 brought the plaintiff from Bayana to Bharatpur on 3.12.1980 for examination of his eyes. He contended that the learned courts did not appreciate that the sale deed was got executed by the defendant no. 2 in favour of his wife, the defendant no. 1, taking undue advantage of old age of the plaintiff. Shri Tripurari Sharma, learned counsel submitted that the learned courts erred in deciding the issue no. 1 against the plaintiff without considering that the sale deed was not executed without payment of sale consideration to him.

7. Shri Sharma further contended that the sale deed is void ab initio being hit by Section 28 of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short-’the Act’) inasmuch as the subject property is situated at Bayana and despite there being an office of Sub-Registrar at Bayana, it was got registered in the office of Sub-Registrar Bharatpur.

8. He, therefore, prays that the civil se