JUDGMENT :

This is a defendant's second appeal, arising out of a suit for cancellation of sale deed.

2. Original Suit No.168 of 1983 was instituted by Smt. Jinnat against Munni Lal, seeking a decree for cancellation of a registered sale deed dated 11.10.1982. The suit aforesaid was instituted in the ex-Court of Munsif, Mauranipur, Jhansi, now redesignated as the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.).

3. Smt. Jinnat was the original plaintiff and died pending suit. She was substituted by her heirs and L.Rs. before the Trial Court, who are the plaintiff-respondents here. According to the original plaintiff, Smt. Jinnat, she was an old and illiterate woman, a poor widow, and a native of Village Ranipur, Tehsil Mauranipur, District Jhansi. She was, at the relevant time, living in Village Ladwari, Tehsil Niwari, District Teekamgarh (Madhya Pradesh), where she was employed in the Public Works Department. She was bhumidhar in the possession of Plot Nos.1238/1/1-52, 1238/2/0-09, 1239/0-11, 1237/1/0-25, 1237/2/0-02 and 1247/1/0-14, all situate at Village Bamhaura Sohagi, Tehsil Mauranipur, District Jhansi. Smt. Jinnat, represented by her heirs and LRs, shall hereinafter be referred to as 'the plaintiff' unless the context requires individual or a different reference. According to the plaintiff, she entered into a bargain with the defendant to sell her bhumidhari land above described (for short, 'the suit property'). The bargain was made between the plaintiff and Munni Lal son of Ghanshyam, the sole defendant, for a total sale consideration of Rs.7000/-.

4. It is the plaintiff's case that parties agreed that the entire sale consideration of Rs.7000/-would be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed before the Sub-Registrar in his office, situate at Mauranipur. It is the plaintiff's case that Munni Lal, who is now represented on record of this appeal by his heirs and LRs, respondent Nos.1/1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4 and 1/5, and referred hereinafter, for the sake of convenience, as 'the defendant', was a headstrong, vicious and deceitful man. He took the plaintiff along to Tehsil Mauranipur on 11.10.1982 in connection with the execution and registration of the covenanted sale deed. The defendant purchased the requisite stamp papers. The defendant colluded with the scribe, Laxmi Prasad, instructing him to scribe the deed of sale. However, despite demand by the plaintiff, at that time to pay the agreed sale consideration of Rs.7000/-, the defendant did not pay anything. He said that the entire sale consideration would be paid to her before the Sub-Registrar. On the said pretext, the defendant along with scribe and the witnesses, all of whom were in collusion with the defendant, took along the plaintiff to the Sub-Registrar's office. When the plaintiff, the defendant, the scribe and witnesses entered the Sub-Registrar's office, the Sub-Registrar, the scribe and the witnesses, with whom the defendant was in collusion, put pressure on the plaintiff to thumb mark the deed. Thereupon, the plaintiff told the Sub-Registrar that she had agreed to sell her property for a sum of Rs.7000/-, which she should be paid. Upon this, the Sub-Registrar assured the plaintiff that the defendant would be shortly paying her the due sale consideration. It is pleaded that to give effect to the contemplated fraud, the defendant kept counting currency in the Sub-Registrar's presence, but paid her a sum of Rs.1000/- alone.

5. It is the plaintiff's case that she repeatedly said that until she received the entire sale consideration of Rs.7000/-, she would not thumb mark the document. But, no one paid heed to the plaintiff and deliberately ignoring it, the scribe, the witnesses, the defendant and a colluding Sub-Registrar, forcibly made her thumb mark the document. Despite the plaintiff beseeching the defendant to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.6000/-, she was not paid anything. It is averred in the plaint that the plaintiff repeatedly requested the defendant, the witnesses and the