Sankata Devi vs Ram Deo - 2021 Supreme(All) 1736

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(All) 1736

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
JASPREET SINGH, J.
Smt. Sankata Devi - Appellant
Versus
Ram Deo And Another - Respondents
Second Appeal No. - 798 of 1980
Decided on : 15-12-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : A.R.Khan, R.P. Lal, Ramesh Kr. Singh, Sharad Nandan Ojha
For the Respondent: R.K.Sharma

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - Second appeal against finding of the lower appellate court - The appellant challenged the dismissal of the suit seeking cancellation of a sale deed, previously decreed by the trial court, on grounds of fraud and lack of consideration. (Paras 4, 11, 21)

(B) Jurisdiction of appellate courts - The lower appellate court is authorized to reappraise evidence and can reverse findings if proper reasoning is provided. (Paras 17, 20)

Facts of the case:
The appellant claimed that the sale deed executed by her father was fraudulent and intended for a gift deed to her and her sister. In response, the defendants contended that the sale deed was valid as consideration was paid. (Paras 6-10)

Findings of Court:
The lower appellate court’s reversal of the trial court's decree was affirmed based on appropriate evaluation of evidence, with no legal errors found. (Paras 16, 19)

Issues: Whether the lower appellate court properly evaluated evidence while overturning the trial court's findings of fact and whether the sale deed was indeed fraudulent. (Paras 4, 11)

Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified that in second appeals, appellate jurisdiction is confined to substantial questions of law and does not allow the reevaluation of facts as decided by the lower courts. (Paras 18, 22)

Result: Appeal dismissed; the lower appellate court's judgment is affirmed.

Table of Content
1. legitimacy of sale deed challenged due to alleged fraud (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
2. defendant denies allegations of fraud and claims valid transaction (Para 9 , 10)
3. lower appellate court re-evaluates evidence and findings (Para 11 , 14 , 15)
4. high court's limited jurisdiction in second appeals (Para 18 , 19 , 20)
5. second appeal dismissed; lower court’s findings upheld (Para 22 , 23)

JUDGMENT :

Jaspreet Singh, J.

1. Heard Shri A. R. Khan, learned counsel for the appellant. None has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents, hence the Court has proceeded to hear the learned counsel for the appellant.

2. This is the plaintiff's second appeal being aggrieved against the judgment and decree dated 14.10.1980 passed by the Civil Judge, Sultanpur allowing the defendants First Civil Appeal Nos.354 and 389 of 1979 as a result the suit of the plaintiff bearing Regular Suit No.170 of 1977 which was decreed by Munsif South, Sultanpur vide judgment and decree dated 02.11.1979 has been set aside by the lower appellate court and the suit of the plaintiff has been dismissed.

3. During pendency of the instant appeal, the respondents no.1, 2 and 3 had expired and they have been substituted by the legal heirs. However, for the sake of convenience the Court has referred to the parties as they were impleaded in the suit.

4. The aforesaid second appeal was admitted by means of order dated 14.11.1980. However, at the time of admission, the substantial question of law was not framed. Subsequently a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by means of order dated 22.07.1990 had framed the following substantial question of law, which reads as under:-

2. As to whether the sale deed impugned in the suit was rightly construed to be fraudulent by the trial court in the light of evidence on record."

5. Briefly the facts giving rise to the instant appeal are being noticed herein after.

6. The plaintiff-appellant Smt. Sankata Devi alongwith her mother Smt. Seopati instituted a suit for cancellation of a sale-deed before the court of Munsif South, Sultanpur registered as Regular Suit No.170 of 1977. Primarily the contention of the plaintiff-appellant was that the property in question belonged to Ram Sundar the father of the plaintiff no.1 and husband of the plaintiff no.2. It was pleaded that Ram Sundar wanted to execute a gift deed in favour of this two daughters, namely, plaintiff no.1 Smt. Sankata Devi and other daughter Smt. Phoola Devi the original defendant no.2 of the suit.

7. It was further pleaded that the defendant no.1, namely, Ram Dev who is the husband of Phoola Devi the defendant no.2 instead of getting the gift deed done got a sale deed executed from Ram Sundar. It was also urged that no sale consideration was paid and as such the sale deed dated 27.06.1977 was an outcome of fraud and accordingly was liable to be cancelled. It was further pleaded that Ram Sundar expired on 17.07.1977 and thereafter the plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit on 21.07.1977.

8. During the pendency of the suit, plaintiff no.2, namely, Smt. Sheopati wife of Ram Sundar made an application seeking her transposition as a defendant and further pleaded that the plaintiff had not brought the correct facts on record and Smt. Sheopati was not willing to contest the pleading as indicated in the plaint in suit including that Smt. Sheopati was shown as a lady of weak intellect and was impleaded as plaintiff no.2 through her next friend namely Ramhit Chaurasiya who is none other then the elder brother of the husband of the plaintiff no.1. In the aforesaid backdrop, the plaintiff no.2 Smt. Sheopati was transposed as defendant no.3.

9. The suit was contested by the defendant by filing a written statement wherein the contentions of the plaintiff was denied. It was specifically pleaded that