The vendor's intention to sell must be clearly established; lack of evidence and timely action invalidates the rectification of the Sale-Deed, reinforcing that fraudulent transactions cannot stand.

JUDGMENT

. Heard learned Counsel for both the parties.

2) The present Appeal is filed by the Appellants being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 13/02/2003 passed by learned 4th Ad-hoc Additional District Judge, Chandrapur (i.e. First Appellate Court) in Reg. Civil Appeal No. 113/1984, thereby dismissing the Appeal of the Appellants (original Defendants) and confirming the judgment and decree dated 25/01/1984 passed by the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Chandrapur (i.e. Trial Court) in Reg. Civil Suit No. 361/1977 decreeing the Suit of the Respondents (original Plaintiffs).

3) The brief facts for filing the present Appeal are as under:-

The Respondents (original Plaintiffs) had filed a Suit before Trial Court for declaration that they are owners of suit fields and they are entitled to retain possession thereof, for rectification of Sale-Deed and for permanent injunction. The claim of the Plaintiffs was that they have purchased fields of Sonapur mentioned in Paragraph 2 of the Plaint (hereinafter referred to as “the suit fields”) from Dumabai Wd/o. Kanhu Patil for Rs. 1000/- on 08/06/1959 by Registered Sale-Deed and they were put in possession by said Dumabai of those fields.

4) According to the Plaintiffs, while executing the Sale- Deed, instead of Khasra Nos. 29/2, 66/3, 66/6 and 66/7 of the suit fields with areas, as stated by them in Paragraph 4 of the Plaint, came to be wrongly written in the Sale-Deed on account of the fact that the then Patwari before execution of Sale-Deed gave those wrong khasra numbers of the suit fields for execution of Sale-Deed, either to play mischief or by bonafide mistake. This mistake could not be detected as the vendor Dumabai was illiterate and Plaintiff Nos. 1 to 3 were also illiterate. They could only make their signatures. Plaintiff Nos. 4 to 6 were minors at that time. However, according to them, as intention of the vendor Dumabai was to sell the suit fields, they were put in possession of the suit fields. The Plaintiffs submitted that Khasra No. 66/7 mentioned in the Sale-Deed to have been sold to the Plaintiffs by Dumbai is not in existence at all at Mouza Sonapur and Khasra No. 29/2 is owned by one Sukya Warlu. Khasra Nos. 66/3 to 135/3 and 66/6 are from particular Gat i..e. Gat No. 2 as mentioned in Paragraph 2 of the Plaint. Gat Nos. 66/3 and 66/6 were owned by Dumabai. The field properties have been in possession of the Plaintiffs since the time of execution of Sale- Deed. The wrong khasra numbers came to be written in the Sale-Deed with area and rental as the then Patwari had given those numbers on the piece of paper to vendor Dumabai, who was illiterate, at the time of execution of Sale-Deed. Dumabai died on 26/06/1977. Her husband Kanhu Patil Bhandekar died long before the year 1949.

5) It is alleged that the Defendants, who have right, title or interest in the Suit Property, tried to disturb the possession of the Plaintiffs after the death of Dumabai and they also filed application for Heirship Certificate before the Naib-Tahsildar, Chandrapur on 30/07/1977. They further submitted that Plaintiff No. 1 Dewaji was cultivating the suit fields on his behalf and on behalf of other Plaintiffs and all of them were living jointly. The Plaintiffs apprehended from the activities of the Defendants that they wanted to lay false claim on the basis of their distant relationship with Deceased Dumabai. The mistake of wrong mention of khasra numbers in the Sale- Deed, for the first time, was detected after the death of Dumabai, when the Defendants tried to make assertion of claim on th