Heard Sri Sanjay Singh, learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant and Smt. Hirdayawati Misra, has appeared for defendants-respondents.
The suit of the plaintiff-appellant for permanent injunction and for cancellation of the sale deed dated 3.7.98 was decreed by the court of first instance vide judgment and order dated 24.8.01. The said judgment, order and decree was challenged by the defendants/respondents in appeal which has been allowed and the suit has been dismissed vide judgment and order dated 3.9.2010.
Aggrieved by the judgment order and decree of the lower appellate court, the plaintiff-appellant has preferred this appeal.
The submission of learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant is that the finding of the lower appellate court with regard to the validity of the execution of the sale deed dated 3.7.98 is perverse and as such cannot be sustained in law.
The lower appellate court after considering the evidence on record has found that the sale deed in dispute dated 3.7.98 (Ext.-1) which was executed by Smt. Vidya Devi is a registered document which bears her photograph and that of the purchaser Smt. Anita. The affixation of the aforesaid photographs on the said sale deed is acceptable to the plaintiff-appellant. The Sub-Registrar has made a specific endorsement on the sale deed that the execution of the aforesaid sale deed is admitted to her. The aforesaid sale deed has also been proved by one of the marginal witnesses to the sale deed i.e. DW3 Krishna Kumar. The said witness has categorically stated that the aforesaid sale deed was read out and explained to the plaintiff-appellant before registration and the plaintiff-appellant after understanding the import of the same has put her thumb impression on it. The sale consideration of Rs.40,000/- was paid by Smt. Anita to the plaintiff-appellant and Smt. Vidya Devi on being specifically asked about having received the sale consideration by the Sub-registrar accepted that she has received the same and that she is not executing the sale deed under any pressure or coercion but voluntarily. The lower appellate court on the basis of the reports of the handwriting and finger print experts further recorded a finding that the sale deed bears the thumb impression of the plaintiff-appellant. The lower appellate court has reversed the findings of the trial Court and has substituted the above findings.
The aforesaid findings are pure findings of fact and have been recorded by the lower appellate court after considering the entire evidence.
The Apex Court in the case AIR 2006 Supreme Court 1975 Gurudev Kaur & others vs. Kaki & others has observed that a finding of fact cannot be interfered in second appeal even though recorded erroneously.
In view of the above, I do not feel that any substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Substantial questions of law as proposed are in fact not even questions of law. No other point has been raised.
Accordingly, the appeal has no merits and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.9.2010 piyush