Judgment

Mrs. Manisha Batra, J.

Aggrieved by the concurrent findings as recorded by the Courts below thereby dismissing the claim of the appellant-plaintiff seeking declaration of relinquishment deed dated 25.05.2000 (Ex.P1/D2) as illegal, null and void, the appellant who is now dead and represented by legal representatives, had preferred the instant appeal.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff was owner in possession of the agricultural land mentioned in detail in para No.1 of the plaint (hereinafter to be mentioned as “disputed land”). Since she being a married person, was residing in her matrimonial house at Village Kakroi, District Sonepat and the disputed land was existing at her native place, therefore, she had given the same to the defendant who was her first cousin for cultivation on payment of batai tihai (1/3rd proceeds of the crop). Subsequently, the defendant asked her to execute some document thereby authorizing him to continue cultivating the disputed land on batai tihai and acceeding to his request, she had gone with him to Tehsil Office, Bahadurgarh on 25.05.2000 to execute a document in this regard where by playing fraud upon her, the defendant instead got executed and registered a deed qua relinquishment of the disputed land in his favour. He also got a mutation No.3026 sanctioned on 05.07.2000 on the basis of the said relinquishment deed in his favour. He had taken over possession of the disputed land and was threatening to alienate the same further. The plaintiff challenged the validity of the impugned release deed on the ground that she was an illiterate, rustic and pardanashin female who had never visited any Tehsil/Government office earlier and was not conversant with the working of the same. She prayed for declaring the impugned release deed and mutation sanctioned on the basis thereof as illegal, null and void and not binding upon her rights and also for consequential relief of permanent injunction thereby restraining the defendant from alienating the disputed land.

3. The defendant in his written statement raised preliminary objections as to maintainability, locus standi, estoppel, cause of action and on the ground that the suit had not been properly valued for the purposes of Court fees. On merits, relationship between the parties was admitted. It was asserted that the plaintiff had executed different sale deeds in respect of some of the land owned by her in the past in favour of his brother and himself. She also agreed to sell the disputed land to him for a sale consideration of Rs.5,30,000/-. The defendant had paid the same to her and she had to execute sale deed in his favour on 25.05.2000. He pleaded that as he was serving Border Security Forces and had to leave to join his duty at Jammu & Kashmir on 28.05.2000 and as stamp papers for execution of sale deed were not available, therefore, on the instructions of the plaintiff herself, instead of sale deed, the impugned release deed in respect of the disputed land was got executed and registered on that date and possession of the disputed property was handed over to him. The pleas taken by the plaintiff were controverted and dismissal of the suit had been prayed for.

4. The plaintiff filed replication resisting the pleas as taken in the written statement and re-asserting those of the plaint. The learned trial Court had framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the agricultural land comprised in rect. And killa no.38/7-2 (5-2), 7/1 (2-4), 40/14-2 (4-0), 17 (8-0) total kitta 4 Rakba (measuring) 19 Kanals 6 Marlas situated within the revenue estate of village Nuna Majra, Tehsil Bahadurgarh as alleged in para no.1 of the plaint? OPP.

2. Whether the release deed dated 25.5.2000 document no.829 is illegal, null and void and not binding upon the plaintiff, on the grounds as detailed in para no.5 of the plaint? OPD

3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the pres