The main legal point established in the judgment is that the sale deed was declared null and void due to fraud, misrepresentation, and lack of consideration, affirming the plaintiff's ownership of the land.

JUDGMENT :

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY, J.

1. Defendants/counter-claimants in the trial Court are in second appeal. The complaint is that the judgment and decree dated 02.06.2003 passed by learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala in Civil Appeal No. 77-K/XIII-2001, whereby the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2001 passed by learned Senior Sub Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala in Civil Suit No. 227/92, in favour of respondent No.1, the counter-claimant has been affirmed.

2. Godam, respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as the 'plaintiff’) claims himself to be owner in possession of land entered in Khata No. 3, Khatauni No. 6, Khasra Nos. 1148/1087 and 1156/1094 measuring 0-32-39 hectares, situated in Mohal and Mauza Garh, Tehsil Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. (hereinafter described as the 'suit land’). As per record and the findings recorded by both Courts below, the plaintiff is an illiterate and rustic villager and Shepherd (Gaddi) by caste and mostly remains away from the native place with herd of his sheep and goats. Dalip Singh, respondent No.1, remained posted as Patwari and Field Kanungo in the area where the suit land is situated. He developed intimacy and friendship with the plaintiff. Consequently, the plaintiff also reposed faith in him. Defendant No.1, taking undue benefit of the simplicity and also long absence of the plaintiff from his native place, manged the execution of attorney in his favour to lookafter the suit property in his absence from the village along with the herd of his sheep and goats. The plaintiff in good faith accompanied defendant No.1 to Tehsil Kangra where papers were prepared by the later. The contents thereof were never explained to the former. The plaintiff even never intended to authorize defendant No.1 to alienate his property to anyone else as he was only authorized to manage the suit property. On the basis of forged and fictitious power of attorney defendant No.1 with malafide intentionto grab the suit land sold the same to defendant No.2, none-else but his daughter-in-law vide sale deed dated 8.10.1992, registered on 09.10.1992. The sale of the suit land according to the plaintiff was made by way of fraud, misrepresentation and without consideration and also consent of the plaintiff, hence was sought to be declared null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. Also that, alleged attorney to alienate the suit land was cancelled by the plaintiff on the same day i.e. 09.10.1992 and intimation in this regard was given to defendant No.1 in advance i.e., a day prior to it on 08.10.1992. Defendant No.1 was served with the copy of cancellation deed. When defendants No. 1 and 2 started threatening the plaintiff to dispossess him from the suit land on the basis of forged and fictitious sale deed, the suit for the decree of declaration that the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land and the sale deed being the result of fraud, misrepresentation and without consideration as well as the consent of the plaintiff is illegal, null and void.

3. Defendants No. 1 and 2 on entering appearance have contested the suit. In preliminary, the objections qua estoppel, waiver, valuation of the suit for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction, suit being benami and filed in collusion with defendant No.3, Chatro not maintainable, barred by limitation and filed without any locus-standi and also that the same could have not been tried by learned trial Court were raised. The gift of the suit land made by defendant No.3 was also sought to be declared as void, inoperative allegedly being the result of fraud, misrepresentation and undue influence. On merits, while admitting that defendant No.1 remained posted as Field Kanungo in that area with headquarter at Mataur during the period from January, 1980 to January, 1986. It is contended that the suit land was located at a distance of 9 kilometers away therefrom. The suit land was allotted to the plaintiff by the State Government and as he was incapable of sellin