^ ^l IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHAT .BlLASPURf c/!^ „.an§l»BencB SECOND APPEAL N0. ^ b 1 OF 200'6 APPELLANT .PLAINTIFF RESPONDENTS : 1. DEFENDANTS /' )W ..••':.•'' fh-1' ^- ^' ...'y^ ^ ^j^ ^ ^ Uma Bai, aged about 60 years, Wife of Shri Parmanand Sahu, Resident of Village Parsiya, Tahsil Nagri, District Dhamtari (C.G.). VERSUS Ghasnin Bai, Wife of Shri Jalam Singh sahu; Jalam Singh, Son of Shri Sakharam Sahu; Narottam Lal Son of Shri Govind Singh Sahu; All Resident of Village Parsiya, Tahsil Nagri, District Dhamtari (C.G.). Phulkunwar Bai, aged about 70 years, Wife of Shri Laxman Singh Sahu, Resident of Purani Basti Kotpara, Nagri, Tahsil Nagri, District Dhamtari (C.G.). 5^ The State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Collector, District Dhamtari (C.G.). SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 ^y../"" <t%// ^' .0<. ^^ \p \^^ ^.G-' © HIGH COURT OP CHHATTISGARH. BIIASPUR 8BCOND APPBAL N0. 164/2006 Uma Bai Vs. Qliasiiiii Bai Mid otlids Appearance: Shri P.P. Sahu, Coimsel for fhe appellant. Oral Order (22.06.2006) 8UNIL KUMAR 8INHA. J. (1) This is the plamtijBPs second appeal filed u/s 100 offhe Code of Civil Procedure, (2) The brief facts are fhat the suit laads were fhe self-acquired property of one Sukhlal who was husband of or^giaal plamtiff n. 1 namely Lalesar Bai aad fafher of plamtiff no,2 Uma Bai. Sukhlal executed a registered sale deed dated 03,9,1991 in favour of defendant no,l Ghasnia Bai, for a consideration of Rs,21,000/-. Sukhlal died on 17.4,1991. His two successors namely Laleshar Bai and Uma Bai, plamtiffs, chaUenged fhe sale deed on account offiaud and non-payinent of consideration, It was pleaded by fhem tih.at in fact, Suklilal has not executed fhe said sale deed axid no consideration was received by him, The defendants denied fhe claim of plaiatiffs, The trial Court dismissed fhe siiit holdmg that a valid sale deed was executed by Sukhlal ia favour of fhe purchaser aad no fraud was played agaiast him. Against the said judgment ao.d decree passed by fhe trial Court, defendaiit no.2, flie appeUant herem, ISled an appeal before fhe lower appeUate Court, The lower appeUate Court also dismissed fhe appeal and confirmed the judgment aad decrce passed by fhe tdal Coiirt, It is agaiast fhis judgxnent aad decree -'^.- .«-~^-.. passed by ffae lower appellate Court, fhe appellaiit/plamtiffno.2 has filed fhis second appeal. (3) Learaed counsel for fhe appellaiit argues fhat the sale-deed was obtained by fraud as fhe seller was not in a fit niental condition on fhe date of execution of fhe sale-deed and fhe consideration of fhe sale was also not paid to fhe seUer. (4) I have gone fhrough the records ofthe coiirts below. The courts below, after goiag through fhe evidence ,have recorded a findiag fhat it was not estabUshed tfaat the seUer was not m a fit mental condition to execute fhe sale-deed and further fhe consideiation was not paid to him» There appears to be no perversity in the fiadiags recorded by fhe two courts below, Morc-over, the vaMdity of fhe sale-deed was attacked on account of jGraud and want of consideration by the two plamtiffs who were admittedly not fhe parties to fhe traasaction. As held by M.P. High Court in fhe matter of Sunderldl V* Anuokunwarba^ 1960 M.PJD.J. Note >»1S4, fhe attack on fhe sale deed on fhe groiind fhat it was obtamed by Jfraud caanot be made by one who was not a party to fhe transaction. Under section 19 of fhe Contract Act, fraud makes fhe sale-deed voidable at the mstance of fhe party on whom fraud has been practised, The contract is otherwise good. It was fhus open only to the party to fhe toraiisaction to chaUenge the saiae, on accouat of fraud and want of consideration. (5) This appeal does not iavolve any substaatial question of law. The same is dismissed at the motion stage itsetf, Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Rcm