The main legal point established in the judgment is that the execution of sale deeds through fraud renders them void, as per the Indian Contract Act, 1872, Section 17, and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, Section 35.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. RATH, J.

The defendant is the appellant against a confirming judgment.

2. The plaintiff-respondent instituted the suit for declaration that the sale deeds are void, confirmation of possession and permanent injunction. The case of the plaintiff is that she is the uterine sister of the defendant. She is a pardanasin lady. At the time of marriage, her father had gifted an area Ac.8.900 dec. of land in mouza-Samapur in her favour. The land was recorded in her name in the settlement R.O.R. published in the year 1962. The bhag tenants were cultivating the land. The defendant was looking after the property on her behalf. In the year 1980, the tenants created disturbance at the instance of the defendant and proposed that the land should be disposed of by sale. She agreed to that proposal. The defendant brought the purchasers. On 28.8.1981 and 7.9.1981 a series of sale deeds had been executed. She had also executed three sale deeds in favour of the defendant without any consideration.

3. The defendant filed the written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. The case of the defendant is that the plaintiff is not an illiterate pardanasin lady. She hails from an educated family. In the year 1980, she proposed to sale her property. He agreed to purchase three acres of land out of the suit plot for a consideration of Rs.15,000/-. The amount was paid to the plaintiff on 5.5.1980 in advance, whereafter possession was delivered to him. As the bhaga chasis’ created disturbance, execution of sale deeds was delayed. On 27.8.1981 the plaintiff along with her husband came to Samita Lodge, where the documents were scribed. They took all the documents with them. Three days thereafter the plaintiff executed 60 numbers of sale deeds including three sale deeds, vide Exts.3, 4 & B in favour of him on 31.8.1981 and 7.9.1981. While executing the sale deeds, the plaintiff was all along with her husband. Plaintiff’s husband had taken active part in settling the proposals and collection of consideration in advance. The plaintiff also got independent advice of her husband.

4. Stemming on the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court struck six issues. The parties led evidence, both oral and documentary, to prove their case. The learned trial court came to hold that the sale deeds, Exts.3, 4 and B had not been executed by the plaintiff after fully understanding the contents thereof. The same were outcome of fraud practiced by the defendant. Held so, it decreed the suit. The unsuccessful defendant filed T.A.No.10 of 1988 before the learned Additional District Judge, Bhubaneswar, which was eventually dismissed.

5. The Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law :

“Whether in view of the categorical admission of the plaintiff and her husband that the sale deed was executed and the plaintiff had the advice of her husband at the time of executing the sale deed, the courts below are justified in annulling the same on the ground that the document in question was not read over and explained to the plaintiff.”

6. Heard Mr. Debasis Chhotray, learned Advocate on behalf of Mr. Bijan Ray, learned Sr. Advocate for the appellant and Mr. B. Sahoo, learned Advocate for the respondent.

7. Mr. Chhotray, learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the plaintiff had admitted that she was depending upon her husband in all her affairs. There was a dispute between the tenants and plaintiff. The deeds were registered 3 to 4 days after the documents scribed on 27.8.1981. The plaintiff executed the sale deeds for legal necessity. She had received the consideration amount. The plaintiff was always accompanied by her husband when the sale deeds were scribed and registered. Her husband, P.W.3 admitted that some sale deeds were scribed on 27.8.1981 and consideration was paid. On 5.5.1980 he had gone to the house of defendant. D.W.1 (scribe) admitted that the deeds were executed by the plaintiff.

8. Per contra, Mr. Sahoo, learned A