1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURSIDCITON

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2367 OF 2010

KRISHNA DEVI … APPELLANT  

VERSUS

KESHRI NANDAN … RESPONDENT

J U D G M E N T

S.ABDUL NAZEER, J.

1. Parties  in  this  appeal  are  close  relatives.   Krishna  Devi,  the

appellant/plaintiff is the daughter of Dharam Singh.  Mathura Prasad, the second

defendant  was  the  brother  of  Dharam  Singh  and  Keshri  Nandan

respondent/defendant No. 1 is the son of Mathura Prasad.  The appellant filed the

suit O.S No. 196/1992 against Keshri Nandan and Mathura Prasad for partition and

separate possession of half share in the suit scheduled property.  It is her case that

the property originally belonged to her  grandfather Banshi Dhar.  After  Banshi

Dhar’s death, her father Dharam Singh and her paternal uncle Mathura Prasad have

2

succeeded to the said property and after the death of her father Dharam Singh, she

is entitled for half share in the said property.  

2. The defendants have opposed the suit.  It is contended that Dharam Singh

had executed a sale deed in respect of his fifty per cent share in the said property in

favour of the first defendant.  The plaintiff filed a reply to the written statement

contending that the sale deed said to have been executed by Dharam Singh has

been obtained by fraud and mis-representation and hence, the said sale deed is not

binding upon her.

3. The trial court on appreciation of materials on record held that the sale deed

said to have been executed by Dharam Singh did not  confer  any right,  title  or

interest on the defendants.  Consequently, the suit was decreed.  The defendants

challenged  the  said  decree  by  filing  Civil  Appeal  No.  60  of  2001  before  the

Additional  District  Judge,  Gurgaon.   The  first  Appellate  Court  set  aside  the

judgment of the trial court and allowed the appeal.  The second appeal filed by the

appellant/plaintiff was dismissed by the High Court.   

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any merit in

this appeal.   It cannot be held that the sale deed dated 11.07.1991 executed by

Dharam Singh was obtained by fraud or by mis-representation.  It  is clear that

when the sale deed was executed by Dharam Singh, he was having sound state of

mind.   The Sub-Registrar, who had registered the documents was examined as

3

DW-3.  In his evidence he stated that the sale deed was executed by Dharam Singh

after he had explained to the parties about contents of the said deed.  Ex. D-1 was

attested by PW-2 and PW-3.  They have nowhere stated in their statements that

Dharam Singh was not in good state of mind at the time of the execution of the

document.  Though it is contended on behalf of the appellant that Dharam Singh

was not keeping well, no medical evidence has been produced in support of the

said contention.  We do not find any ground to interfere with the judgment of the

High Court.

5. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed, with no orders as to costs.  

……………………………J.    (N.V. RAMANA)

   ……………………………J.    (S. ABDUL NAZEER)

New Delhi; March 21, 2018.