Hon’ble Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

2. It is admitted fact that parties are resident of same village Madho Math. It is also admitted that on request of defendant-respondent plaintiff had agreed to sell his property. It is also admitted that on 19.7.2004 plaintiff had executed sale-deed in question in favour of defendant-respondent and received consideration (receiving of consideration is denied in plaint but admitted in evidence and also during arguments).

3. Plaintiff had filed original suit with averment that he had agreed to sell his Deeh land, which is situated in front of the house of defendant but at the time of execution of sale-deed in question, draft of said deed was not read and explained to him, and in place of land of Abadi-Deeh the sale-deed of agricultural land relating to 1/3rd share of plaintiff of plot No. 2/2 was got written by defendant. Since plaintiff had never consented to execute sale-deed of agricultural land, therefore the sale-deed in question dated 19.7.2004 was obtained by defendant fraudulently. The disputed land was not partitioned and no consideration was paid to plaintiff and defe