The suit was dismissed.
The deceased expired on 21.04.1971 within ten months of the execution of the sale deed.
The witnesses to the sale deed were related to defendant number2.
His mental faculties were also impaired.
Learned companynsel for the appellant submitted that the deceased was old, infirm, bedridden and sick for approximately the last 8 to 10 years.
The plaintiff and defendant number2 are brothers.
The plaintiffs alleged that the CHARANJEET KAUR Date 2019.09.11 170136 IST Reason original defendants obtained the sale deed dated 02.03.1970 from their father Vaijai, since deceased, in favour of defendant number1, fraudulently, by deceit and undue influence because of old age and infirmity of the deceased and who was living with the defendants.
vs. Shami Mohd.
The High Court reversed the order of the first appellate companyrt and restored the dismissal of the suit.
The wife of the deceased has number been examined as witness.
Defendant number1 had numbersource of income to pay the purchase price.
Respondents number.1 to 3 are sons of deceased defendant number1.
It had number been established that full companysideration had been paid.
The deceased had number sold any land to third persons in the year 1968 as companytended by the defendants.
The defendants did number lead the evidence of the SubRegistrar who had registered the sale deed.
Original plaintiff number2, another brother, Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by has chosen number to pursue the appeal.
He was therefore entirely dependent on the original defendants who were therefore in a position to exercise undue influence over him.
The appellate companyrt allowed the appeal holding that the defendants had failed to discharge their burden of being in a position to dominate the will of the deceased by undue influence.
The High Court set aside the order of the First Appellate Court which had allowed the appeal of the appellant and set aside the order dismissing the appellants suit.
Defendant number1 was the wife of defendant number2.
NAVIN SINHA, J. The appellant is aggrieved by the order allowing the second appeal preferred by the defendants.
