Hon’ble Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J.—This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 19.10.2015 passed by District Judge, Etah in consolidated Civil Appeal No. 21/2013 (Smt. Surendra Bala v. Smt. Bhagwan Devi and others) and civil appeal No. 62/2013 (Abdul Sahid and another v. Smt. Surendra Bala).

2. It is admitted case that original owner of disputed property was Sohan Lal, s/o Bihari Lal. His late son Virendra Kumar was married with Surendra Bala (defendant No. 1). It is also admitted that defendant No. 2 to 7 are near relative of defendant No. 1. Admittedly, defendant No. 1 Surendra Bala is residing in that portion of property by which original suit of eviction and recovery of damages has been filed. It is also admitted that on behalf of previous owner Sohan Lal (/defendant No. 7) had executed sale-deed dated 9.9.1970 of disputed property in favour of plaintiff No. 1 Bhagwan Devi. It is also admitted that during pendency of the proceedings of the original case, the plaintiff No. 1 Bhagwan Devi had sold the disputed property to plaintiff No. 2 and 3 (appellants of first appeal No. 62/2013).

3. In original suit No. 105/1973, the plaint case in brief was that original owner Sohan Lal (defendant No. 7) had admitted that her daughter-in-law, defendant No. 1 Smt. Surendra Bala as licensee in the disputed property. The said Sohan Lal had sold this property by sale-deed in favour of plaintiff No. 1. Sohan Lal cancelled the license of defendant No. 1 and had served notice of this to her. Plaintiff had also served notice to the defendant No. 1 for her status and information of cancellation of her license. Defendants No. 2 and 7 were admitted in this property on her behalf. Defendant No. 1 given wrong reply of said notice, then plaintiff No. 1 had filed suit for recovery of ejectment and recovery of damages of defendant from disputed house.

4. Only defendant No. 1 had filed written-statement, in which she had admitted that Sohan Lal was the owner in possession of disputed property. But the plaintiff is not owner of this property. After the death of her husband, Sohan Lal had kept her (defendant No. 1) with him like daughter. Sohan Lal had sent her for training in Firozabad, then his daughter started living with him and later on, not permitted her (defendant No. 1) to enter the house. Registered sale-deed dated 9.9.1970 executed on behalf of Sohan Lal is a void document, and at the time of execution of said sale-deed she was not physically or mentally fit and could not understand the things. Such sale-deed was without consideration. Suit of plaintiff is based on incorrect facts and is liable to be dismissed.

5. In original suit, trial Court had framed issues and afforded opportunity of hearing to the parties, then they have filed documentary evidences and oral evidences. Plaintiff’s side had examined PW-1 Ram Gopal, PW-2 Sohan Lal, PW-3 Sansar Babu Babu and PW-4 Abdul Sahid; whereas defendants had examined sole witness DW-1 Surendra Bala (defendant No. 1). After affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.) Etah had decreed the original suit by its judgment dated 4.2.2013. In this judgment, trial Court had framed 20 issues. Issue No. 1,5 and 10 related to fact as to whether Sohan Lal had executed the sale-deed dated 5.9.1970 for consideration of Rs. 15,000 and handed over actual possession and disputed property to plaintiff No. 1 or whether the said sale-deed was invalid document and whether the plaintiff became owner of disputed property on the basis of said sale-deed. After appreciating the evidences, trial Court had held that said sale-deed was valid document executed by previous owner Sohan Lal in favour of plaintiff No. 1 and thereafter handed over the possession and ownership of disputed property to plaintiff No. 1 who is owner of this property. It was also held by the trial Court that Sohan Lal had willingly executed the sale-deed in question in good state of mental health and