A sale deed executed by a blind and illiterate old man living in a village background, who was persuaded by the defendant-appellant to execute the sale deed under the belief that he would receive financial aid, is voidable due to fraud and undue influence.

This is a second appeal filed against the judgment and order dated 27-10-1984 passed by Shri R. N. Rai, Civil Judge, Jalaun at Orai in Civil Appeal No. 41 of 1981 as a result of which he accepted the appeal decreeing the suit of the plaintiff.

2. It is a case of execution of sale-deed of land by blind man in favour of a potter by fraud. It is said that the potter was having good relations with blind man. It is a case of an old, illiterate man living in a village back ground. He is leaving four sons and other members of family. He is living separately from them. So question is that whether the sale-deed executed was his mental actor he was induced to sign the document under the belief that financial help would be given and for that he was to go to Tehsil Head Quarter for filing the application to obtain that aid in view of his house having been fallen in the rainy season? The respondent believed and signed the document which ultimately turned to be the sale-deed. The decree was passed by trial Court regarding the validity of the sale-deed, hence the present Second Appeal.

3. Few facts are undisputed while deciding the controversy of this appeal. The respondent Ajudhi executed sale-deed of 3. 27 acres of land in favour of the defendant-appellant for a consideration of Rs. 30,000/. The land was situated in Mauja Maktora, Pargana Jalaun. It is alleged by the appellant that he paid Rs. 20. 000/-before the sub Registrar and Rs. 10,000/-in advance. The plaintiff-respondents thereafter filed a suit alleging that the defendant-appellant persuaded him that he should accompany him to the office of Tehsildar Jalaun since plaintiffs house had fallen in the rainy season and financial help would be procured for him. It may be mentioned that the defendant-appellant is a potter and plaintiff respondent has four sons living separately. The allegation of plaintiff-respondent is that acting under the persuasion of the defendant-appellant he went to the Tehsil and executed the document under the trap.

He denied that he has executed any sale-deed with an intention to convey and transfer the land and when he came to know he filed the suit on the plea of fraud. The defendant-appellant contested the suit. The trial court dismissed the suit holding that the consideration has passed and there was no fraud.

4. The appellate court reversed the decree on the three grounds. Firstly, that these was no compelling necessity to transfer the land. Secondly, the respondent-Vendor (plaintiff) was blind and was living separately. Thirdly, the sub-Registrar stated that he was blind whereas the witnesses of defendant- appellant stated that he was not blind. The appellate court did not believe the evidence of the defendant-appellant. This is now the present second appeal has been filed and at the time of admission of the present second appeal the following substantial questions of law numbered as 2, 3 and 5 were allowed to be framed:

"2. Whether the lower appellate court has committed an illegality in brushing aside the presumption of genuineness of the sale deed as it was a registered document, only on conjecture and surmises?

3. Whether the lower appellate Court was justified in not taking into consideration the ingredients of Section 17 of the Contract Act while recording a finding on fraud ?

5. Whether suit for cancellation of sale deed without consequential relief of possession was not maintainable ?"

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Shri V K. S. Chaudhary Senior Advocate appeared for the appellants and Dr. V. S. Dwivedi put in appearance for the respondents.

6. Shri V. K. S. Chaudhary raised the following submissions. Firstly, he submitted that the lower appellate court fell into a legal error in reversing the judgment and it was wrong approach in law. He further submitted that there is a finding that plaintiff-respondent went to the office of Sub-Registrar and he was accompanied by his son and Rs. 20,000/-was given before the Sub-R