Accord ingly, she filed a suit for cancellation of the sale deed.
3 and 4 had gained the companyfidence of the plaintiff and she companyfided in them her desire to make a gift of her entire properties in favour of her daughter.
The plaintiff paid the amount needed for expenses.
The companysideration for the sale shown in the document was Rs.
She had in fact exe cuted two deeds, one of which was a gift in favour of her daughter and the other a sale deed in favour of all the defendants.
The plaintiff is an illiterate person.
The defendants and the Sub Registrar as well as the document writer had all company spired together to perpetrate the fraud.
Setting aside the decree in the defendants second appeal, the High Court held that the plaintiff was totally deceived as to the character of the document which she executed and the docu ment was, therefore, void and of numbereffect whatsoever.
The suit was decreed by the trial companyrt and that decree was companyfirmed in appeal by the first appellate companyrt.
This was a clear case of fraud practised upon her by the defendants.
3 and 4 readily agreed to make arangements to execute and register the necessary deed.
Her daughter Rameshwari Devi is the wife of the 6th defendant, Yogendra Prasad Singh.
On two deeds, which had been prepared at the instance of the de fendants, the plaintiff was made to put her thumb impres sions.
The facts are number in dispute.
Accordingly, the suit was barred under section 49 of the Act under which companysolidation proceedings had been pending at the time of the institution of the suit in respect of the property in ques tion.
They told her that she had executed a sale deed in their favour.
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.11.1980 of the Aliahabad High Court in S.A. No.
14,000.
The High Court held that the suit was barred by reason of Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Hold ings Act, 1953 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
It was only on 2nd July, 1974 that she came to know of the full facts.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
2954 of 1979 whereby the learned Judges of the High Court, allowing the defendants appeal set aside the decrees of the companyrts below.
The plaintiff did number know that she had executed a sale deed in favour of the defendants in respect of her property until 25th June, 1974 when she found defendant Nos.
Defendants Nos.
She had been told, and she honestly believed, that she was executing a gift deed in favour of her daughter, as desired by her, in respect of her properties.
Defendant Nos.
Being an illiterate person, she companyld number read the companytents of the documents or understand their character.
Hence the present appeal by the plaintiff.
On 18.9.1971, these defendants took the plaintiff to the Office of the Sub Registrar.
The defendants pur chased stamp papers in the name of the plaintiff.
3 and 4, are the brothers of the 6th defendant.
2998 of 1980.
S. Gujral and Mohan Pandey for the Appellant.
3 and 4 interfering with her possession of the property.
Arjun Singh and Janardan Singh, defendant Nos.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by THOMMEN, J. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal No.
Satish Chandra, Praveen Swarup and Pramod Swarup for the Respondent.
2954 of 1979.
