Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—This is a plaintiff’s second appeal filed under Section 100 C.P.C. After hearing this appeal under Order 41 Rule 11 C.P.C. this Court formulated following substantial question of law on 30.4.2010:

“(i) Whether the transaction regarding sale of house was fair, proper and transparent and defendant respondent No. 1 took advantage of her relationship from the plaintiff, who was mother?

(ii) Whether the factum of sale consideration is proved from the oral and documentary evidence produced before the Court below or the findings in this regard are based on presumption?

(iii) Whether the Courts below have committed illegality in not recording the finding regarding formation of a valid contract and payment of sale considerationýÿ between the partiesýÿ and the impugned judgments of the Courts below are vitiated on account of misreading of evidence on record.

2. Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for appellant and Sri K.N. Mishra and Sri A.K. Dave, Advocates for respondents have advanced their submissions on aforesaid questions.

3. To appreciate the above issue, the bare facts necessary for adjudication of aforesaid questions I may refer to the case set up by parties before the Courts below.

4. The plaintiff-appellant, Smt. Vidhyawati Verma instituted Original Suit No. 12 of 2006 in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Allahabad for cancellation of sale-deed dated 17.11.1997 registered on 16.12.1997 in respect to House No. 1027, G.T.B. Nagar Kareli Scheme, Allahabad and for a decree of injunction and possession.

5. The plaint case set up by her is that she herself was working as Nurse in the medical department under Central Government and retired therefrom in 1992. The disputed house was allotted to her by U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad (hereinafter referred to as the “Parishad”) pursuant whereto an agreement for sale was executed on 25.3.1980 and possession was delivered to plaintiff on the same day. She paid all the installments/consideration to Parishad, whereafter a sale-deed was executed in her favour on 28.7.1997. The plaintiff initially had two sons and two daughters but her younger son, Raju Verma died in 1994 leaving only one son, Sudhir Verma. The names of her daughters are Reeta Srivastava and Amita Srivastava.

6. Her son Sudhir Verma was married in 1996 and was appointed in Accounts Department of CDA Pension in 1997. He was allotted a Government accommodation and started living therein. Her daughter, Reeta Srivastava is residing with her husband at Preetam Nagar, Allahabad. Her younger daughter, Amita Srivastava, whose husband is an employee in HYDLE Department is also living separately with him. However plaintiff had extra affection to her younger daughter, Amita Srivastava who used to visit and serve her (plaintiff) in various ways. Taking advantage thereof the younger daughter and her husband manipulated and got a forged sale-deed executed on 17.11.1997, registered on 16.12.1997, though no consideration was paid to her. The sale-deed is forged and fictitious.

7. The suit was contested by defendants. Besides, they also lodged a counter claim for execution of sale-deed, alleging that despite and payment of entire consideration, the plaintiff is not delivering possession of disputed house and, therefore, possession thereof be directed to be handed over to them.

8. The Trial Court formulated eleven issues in all but for the purpose of present appeal the issues No. 1, 2 and 3, relevant, are reproduced as under:

^^1& D;k cSukek cgd vferk JhokLro ftldh jftLVªh fnukWad 22&02&2007 dks gq;h fujLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS \

2& D;k okn xzLr Hkou ftldk fooj.k okn i= ds var esa ntZ gS ds lEcU/k esa izfroknhx.k ds fo:) LFkkbZ fu”ks/kkKk tkjh fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS\ ;fn gkWa rks mldk izHkko \

3& D;k oknxzLr Hkou ftldk fooj.k okni= ds vUr esa ntZ gS] ds n[kyukek dh fMdh okfnuh ds i{k esa tkjh djrs gq;s izfroknhx.k dks oknxzLr Hkou ds Hkwry ds dejksa ls csn[ky fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS\ ,oa D;k okfnuh