JAIN, J.—This is a plaintiffs first appeal whose suit for cancellation of trust deed has been dismissed by the District Judge, Jaipur City.

2 This suit is by Kamal Kant Paliwal against his own mother Prakash Devi Paliwal, his maternal uncle Jaidev Sharma and his two minor children Kumari Nidhi and Anurag his son. It has been alleged in the plaint that a plot of land situate at Moti Doongri Road, Jaipur measuring 4085 5 Sq.Yds. was purchased by Smt. Prakash Devi from Urban Improvement Board, Jaipur under a sale deed dated 14-4-52 in the name of Shri Jaidev Sharma, defendant No. 2, for and on behalf of the plaintiff It was stated that the purchase of the plot was Benami and the consideration of the plot was paid by Prakash Devi out of the funds received by the plantiff from his grand-parents, uncles and other relations from time to time. According to the plaintiff his mother suggested to him sometime in the month of January, 1972 that he should execute general power of attorney in favour of his mother and the maternal uncle as to facilitate raising of money from the plot. He agreed. On 12th January, 1972, the trust deed in question was got executed and it was got registered. The plaintiff signed the said document without reading the same treating it as a general power of attorney. In September, 1972 he came to know that the document got executed by him on 12-1-1972 was not a general power of attorney but a trust deed. His averment is that his consent has been obtained to execute the document in question by practising fraud upon him. He has prayed for a declaration that the document of declaration of trust dated 12-1-72 is null and void and it does not affect the plaintiffs right and title to the land covered by the trust deed.

3. Curiously enough Smt. Prakash Devi defendant No. 1 admitted the allegations of fraud by her written statement dated 1-11-72. Likewise Jaidev Sharma defendant No. 2 admitted the averments of fraud made by the plaintiff. The two minor children, defendants Nos. 3 and 4 were represented by Smt. Hensa Paliwal, their mother and wife of the plaintiff as guardian ad-litem. She also admitted the allegation made in the plaint.

4. Plaintiff examined himself as P.W. 1 and he stated that he did not read the declaration of trust executed on 12-1-1972. Even when the Sub-Registrar asked him if he has read it and admitted the contents of documents he kept quiet and on his behalf his maternal uncle Shri Jai Dev Sharma answered him in the affirmative. Ramesh Chandra Jain Advocate of Jaipur has also been examined as P.W. 2 on behalf of the plaintiff. He supports the stand of the plaintiff that the latter did not read the document and signed the same without reading it. The learned trial Judge did not accept the version of the plaintiff that any fraud was practised upon him. He held that it did not require much care and attention to find out from the document that it was not a general power of attorney but a trust deed. He dismissed the plaintiffs suit.

5. By the document dated 121-1972, the Validity of which has been challenged by the plaintiff on a ground of fraud, a trust has been created, for the benefit of the children of the plaintiff Kamal Kant Paliwal. The beneficiaries under the trust were Km. Nidhi aged 5 years, Ch. Anurag aged 3 years and any other child that may be born thereafter out of the wed-lock of the plaintiff and his wife Hansadevi. The trus-tees appointed under this deed were the plain tiff himself, his mother Smt. Prakash Devi Paliwal and Jai Dev Sharma plaintiffs maternal ancle. The property that was covered by the trust was plot No 5 except the strip of land measuring 195 x 50. It thus appears that the property under the trust was kept apart for the benefit of the children of Kamal Kant Paliwal. The three trustees were to look after it and they were given the following powers under the deed:

(i) to sell, mortgage, lease out or otherwise transfer, the whole or any portion of the property and utilise the sa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document