JUDGMENT 1. The appellants/defendants, Bhagirath S/o late Sh. Motilal and others (legal representatives of original defendant, Motilal) having lost the legal battle before the two courts below, have filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in this Court on 22.04.2011 assailing the judgment and decree dated 28.01.2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge (FT) No.2, Bikaner, whereby the learned lower appellate court below has dismissed the First Appeal No.37/2009-LR's of Motilal Vs. Gyandutt @ Gyanprakash & Anr., and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 17.12.2005 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Bikaner, decreeing the suit (Civil Original Suit No.103/1990-Gyandutt @ Gyan Prakash Vs. LR's of Motilal) filed by the first respondent/plaintiff, namely, Gyandutt @ Gyan Prakash S/o late Sh. Onkardutt, for seeking cancellation of sale-deed 11.01.1983 (which was registered before the Sub-Registrar, Bikaner on 19.01.1983) executed by the step brother of plaintiff, second respondent/defendant, Durgadutt S/o Onkardutt, in favour of original defendant, Motilal adopted son of Labhchand, with the suit land, which is a plot of land (“Bara”) ad-measuring 240 Square Yards (2' x 2') situated at Mohalla Hamalon-Ki-Bari, Bikaner. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the first respondent/plaintiff, namely, Gyandutt @ Gyan Prakash S/o late Sh. Onkardutt, filed a suit for possession and cancellation of the sale-deed dated 11.01.1983 executed by second respondent/defendant, Durgadutt S/o Sh. Onkardutt, in favour of original defendant, Motilal (who is now represented by his legal representatives). Sh. Onkardutt, father of both the plaintiff Gyandutt @ Gyan Prakash and seller-defendant Durgadut, had earlier married one Smt. Bijali, from whom the second respondent/defendant, namely, Durgadutt, was born, who was blind from the time of his birth. After death of Smt. Bijali, Sh. Onkardutt, got married to one Harpyari, who also died issue less and thereafter said Onkardutt, married Smt. Suraj Devi, from whose wedlock the first respondent/plaintiff (Gyandutt @ Gyan Prakash) and one daughter, namely, Asha were born. The first respondent/plaintiff sought cancellation of the sale-deed dated 11.01.1983 (Exhibit-7) on the basis of a Trust-deed (Exhibit-1) dated 22.09.1973 by which Trust was created in his favour by his father, late Sh. Onkardutt, which was duly registered with the Sub-Registrar, Bikaner on 01.12.1973. It is worth noting here that the then Sub-Registrar, Bikaner (Sh. The first respondent/plaintiff sought cancellation of the sale-deed dated 11.01.1983 (Exhibit-7) on the basis of a Trust-deed (Exhibit-1) dated 22.09.1973 by which Trust was created in his favour by his father, late Sh. Onkardutt, which was duly registered with the Sub-Registrar, Bikaner on 01.12.1973. It is worth noting here that the then Sub-Registrar, Bikaner (Sh. Chaturbhuj Arora) also made a note on the original trust-deed to the effect that the defendant No.2, Durgadutt, who was blind by birth, was also present at the time of registration of the Trust-Deed (Ex.1), the same was read over to him and he (defendant No.1-Durgadutt) in turn agreed to the execution of the said Trust-deed in favour of his step brother, Gyandutt @ Gyan Prakash. 3. This Court also summoned the original trust-deed from the first respondent/plaintiff through his counsel Mr. D.D. Chitlangi, who produced the same before the Court for perusal during the course of arguments. This Court has carefully seen the said original registered trust-deed, on the back of the said trust-deed a note has been appended by the then Sub-Registrar, Bikaner. For the purposes of ready reference, the note (marked as “M” to “N”) on the original Trust-Deed is quoted herein below for ready reference: - ^^uksV & Jh nqxkZnŸk tUe ls vU/ks gS ftUgsa ;g nLrkost i<+dj lquk;k x;k rks mUgksus lgh gksuk Lohdkj fd;kA Sd/- ¼prqHkqZt vjksM+k½ 22.9.73” 4. The said trust-deed is duly signed by Sh. Onkardutt (father of respondents No.1 and 2) and bears the thumb impression of the blind son, namely, Durgadutt, through the first wife Smt. Bijali and the thumb impression of third wife of Onkardutt, Smt. Suraj Bai (mother of plaintiff/respondent-Gyandutt @ Gyan Prakash). The said trust-deed is duly signed by Sh. Onkardutt (father of respondents No.1 and 2) and bears the thumb impression of the blind son, namely, Durgadutt, through the first wife Smt. Bijali and the thumb impression of third wife of Onkardutt, Smt. Suraj Bai (mother of plaintiff/respondent-Gyandutt @ Gyan Prakash). The said trust-deed (Exhibit-1), which was produced before the courts below, is also quoted herein below for ready reference: - AA JhaAA ^^VªLVukek ge fd Jh vksadkj nŸk iq= Jh teuknŸk mQZ Mks<+th vk;q 70 o”kZ tkfr Hkknk.kh czkã.k fuoklh eksgYyk vksloky dksBkjh;ku chdkusj ,oa Jh nqxkZnŸk iq= Jh vksadkj nŸk vk;q 40 o”kZ tkfr Hkknk.kh czkã.k fuoklh eksgYyk vksloky dksBkjh;ku chdkusj&eqdjku bl izU;kl ?kks”k.kk i= ds gSA tks fd eqfdj vksadkjnŸk dh o`)koLFkk gSA eqfdj nqxkZnŸk tUekU/k gS rFkk vfookfgr gSA nqxkZnŸk dh ek¡ eqfdj vksadkjnŸk dh izFke ifRu Fkh tks nqxkZnŸk ds tUe ds ckn tYn xqtj xbZA vksadkjnŸk eqfdj us rRi’pkr fof/kor nwljh ‘kknh dh ex jog ifRu Hkh fualrku xqtj xbZA mlds ckn vksadkjnŸk eqfdj us Jherh lwjtckbZ ls rhljh ‘kknh fof/kor dh ftlls vHkh nks larkus vFkkZr~ ,d ukckfyx iq= fp- KkunŸk gSA eqfdj vksadkjnŸk eqfdj nqxkZnŸk ds Qk;ns ds fy, vygnk¼lsijsV½ VªLV ?kksf”kr djsxkA vHkh bl nLrkost ds }kjk ge eqfdjku eqfdj vksadkjnŸk dh rhljh ifRu Jherh lwjtckbZ rFkk mldh nksuks ukckfyx larkuksa lqJh vk’kk rFkk fp-KkunŸk ds ykHkkFkZ ,d VªLV ?kksf”kr djrs gS tks fuEukuqlkj gSA 1- bl VªLV dk uke ^^Jherh lwjtckbZ Hkknk.kh izkbZosV VªLV^^ gksxkA 2- bl VªLV dk iz;kstu Jherh lwjtckbZ ifRu eqfdj Jh vksadkjnŸk Hkknk.kh rFkk mudh nksuks ukckfyx larkuks lqJh vk’kk rFkk fp- KkunŸk dh ifjofj’k] i<+kbZ] fookg vkfn dh O;OkLFkk djuk gSA 3- bl VªLV ds izkajfHkd VªLVh ge nksuks eqdjku Jh vksadkjnŸk rFkk Jh nqxkZnŸk ,oa Jherh lwjtckbZ ykHkkfFkZuh etdwj rhuks gksaxsA Hkfo”; esa dksbZ VªLVh fdlh dkj.k ls in eqDr gksuk pkgs rks R;kx i= }kjk ,slk dj ldsxk vU;Fkk rkos dkuwu fdlh dkj.k ls fdlh Hkh VªLV dk LFkku fjDr gksus ij viuh ftanxh esa ;k olh;r }kjk Jherh lwjtckbZ pkgs rks nwljk VªLVh fu;qDr dj ldsxhA de ls de ,d VªLVh Hkh jguk i;kZIr gksxkA 4- vksadkjnŸk rFkk lwjt ckbZ dh ftUnxh dh lekfIRk ij tc Hkh KkunŸk ckfyd gks tk;sxk ;g VªLV Lor% lekIr gksdj KkunŸk bl VªLV dh laifŸk dk Lokeh gks tk;sxkA fdUrq lqJh vk’kk dh ‘kknh ls iwoZ ,slk u gks ldsxkA 5- Jherh lwjtckbZ VªLVh dks vf/kdkj gksxk fd bl VªLV ds iz;kstu dh iwfrZ gsrq vxj vko’;d le>s rks tqt ;k dqy VªLV laifŸk dks fdlh Hkh izdkj ls eqUrfdy dj ldsxhA vksadkjnŸk dh ftUnxh esa ,slk bUrdky mldh lgefr fcuk u gks ldsxkA 6- VªLVhx.k dks vf/kdkj gksxk fd bl VªLV ds izko/kkuks ds vuqdwy fu;eksifu;r cukysA 7- bl VªLV dh VªLV laifŸk ds uD’ks o r[kehus layXu gS rFkk mldk iw.kZ fooj.k layXu f’kM~;wy esa fy[kk x;k gSA mDr uD’ks] r[kehus o f’kM~;wy bl nLrkost ds vfHkUu vax jgsaxsA fygktk ;g nLrkost VªLVukek geus gekjh jkth[kq’kh] gksl] gqfl;kjh ls o fcuk fdlh u’ks ;k tcz ncko ds fy[k fn;k fd lun jgs lEor~ 2030 ferh vklkstr cnh 22 okj ‘kfuokj rkjh[k 22-9-1973 dye eksM+kjke lksuxjk MhM jkbZVj dh gS gLc dgus eqfdjku fy[kk i<+dj lquk;kA Sd/- eksM+kjke lksuxjk 22-9-73 rQlhy VªLVhx.k 1& Jh vksadkjnŸkj g&vksadkjnŸk 2& Jh nqxkZnŸk va- nqxkZnŸk ds Mkos gkFk dk 3& Jherh lwjtckbZ vªa- lwjtckbZ ds thous gkFk dk lk{kh lk{kh cgknqj flag dkspj Sd/- iq= Jh dLrqpan dkspj uwjugen xt/kjA eksgYyk dkspjku chdkusj^^ 17-7-93 f’kM~;wy 1 edku v:u ‘kgj chdkusj eksgYyk dksBkjh;ku esa Liw-u- 467 okMZ ua- 13 r[kehuk najxth 8011& 4548@& o:os iÍk rk- 23-10-22 ok iÍk rk- 12-9-22 mŸkjkn jkLrk fn[kukn edku izrkipUn nLlkuh mxq.k edku f’ko’kadj Hkknk.kh vkFkq.k edku f’koizrki mQZ ukuw Hkkb;ksth njxt 8011---- 8011---- 2- ckMk vn:u ‘kgj chdkusj eksgYyk gekyk dh [ks.k ls mrjkn c:os iÍk rk- 19-7-20 r[kehuk :-1880@& njxth 240 dksVMh vklwjke lsox jkLrk xyh xyh 240 3- edku okds dksyk;r eksgyk nek.kh;k ds eafnj ls fn[kukn c:os iÍk rk- 24-10-28 r[kehuk :-1865@& njxth 255 dksVMh paikyky Nxuyky nek.kh jkLrk xyh uksgjk jkenso eksph 255 4- uksgjk okds dLck uks[kk eM+h eksgYyk cktkj esa c:os iÍk rk-8-6-33 njxth 600 r[kehuk :-12540@& dqy r[kehuk 30387½-6 5. Against the concurrent decree granted by the two courts below cancelling the sale-deed in favour of Motilal, the legal representatives of original defendant, Motilal have filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of CPC. Against the concurrent decree granted by the two courts below cancelling the sale-deed in favour of Motilal, the legal representatives of original defendant, Motilal have filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of CPC. The findings of the learned trial court in favour of plaintiff Gyandutt @ Gyan Prakash decreeing the plaintiff's suit vide judgment and decree dated 17.12.2005 are quoted herein below: - ^^7- cgl lquh xbZA i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA i{kdkjku }kjk is’k dh xbZ uftjksa dk llEeku voyksdu@v/;;u fd;k x;kA vfrfjDr rufd;ksa ij rudhokj gekjk fu.kZ; fuEu izdkj ls gS%& rudh la- lkr ^^vk;k lwjtnsoh vkSj vksadkjnŸk dh iRuh ekU; :Ik ls ugh Fkh] vkSj KkunŸk oknh ,oa eq- vk’kk vksadkjnŸk ds Øe’k% iq= ,oa iq=h ugh gS\ vkSj D;k izfroknh la-2] nqxkZnŸk Lo- vksadkjnŸk dk ek= fof/kd mŸkjkf/kdkjh gS\^^ bu rudh dks fl) djus dk Hkkj izfroknhx.k ij Fkk] ftls vius i{k esa lkfCkr djus es foQy jgs gSA ;gk¡ ij ;g ,d Lohd`r fLFkfr gS fd oknh] lwjtnsoh dh dks[k ls tUek gS rFkk mDr lwjtnsoh] vksadkjnŸk dh rhljh ifRu Fkh] lcls igyh ifRu ls izfroknh la-&nks nqxkZnŸk] iSnk gqvk] tks tUeka/k gS] nwljh ifRu fcuk dksbZ larku mRiUu fd, gh [kRe gks xbZ Fkh vkSj mlds ckn vksadkjnŸk us fo/kok lwjtnsoh dks viuh ifRu ds crkSj viuk;kA ;gk¡ fo}ku vf/koDrk izfroknhx.k dk ;g rdZ gS fd mDr lwjtnsoh] iq”dj.kk czkã.k Fkh vkSj bl lekt esa fo/kok fookg dks ekU;rk ugh Fkh vkSj bl dkj.k lwjtnsoh vkSj vksadkjnŸk dh ‘kknh oS/k ugh Fkh vkSj bu nksuksa ds lgokl ls mRiUu oknh o bldh cgu vk’kk] vksadkjnŸk ds oS/k iq= vkSj iq=h ugh gSA tc ge bl RkF; ij fopkj djrs gS fd D;k okLro esa lwjtnsoh dk vksadkjnŸk ds lkFk fookg oS/k fookg ugh Fkk] rks bldk mŸkj uk esa tkrk gS] tSlk fd bl fjokt ¼;wlst½ dks lkfcr djus dk Hkkj izfroknhx.k ij Fkk] ftls os lkfcr ugh dj lds gSA bl fcUnq ij mldh rjQ ls M+h MCY;w&6 ‘;keyky] eksrhyky dk iq= vkSj Mh- MCY;w&7 fo”.kqnŸk tks bldk fudV dk fj’rsnkj gS] dks gh ijhf{kr djok;k x;k gS rFkk blds vykok fdlh ,sls O;fDr dks bl fcUnq ij ijhf{kr ugh djok;k x;k gS tks lekt esa izpfyr fjoktksa ds lac/k es fo’ks”k Kku j[krk gks] rFkk vius vkiesa ,d rVLFk vkSj fu”Ik{k xokg Hkh gks\ ek= bu nksuksa fgrc) lkf{k;ksa ds ;g dg nsus ls fd iq”dj.kk lekt esa fo/kok fookg ugh djus dk ,d fjokt jgk gS] bl RkF; dks lkfcr fd;k gqvk ugh ekuk tk ldrk gSA nwljh rjQ fjokt ¼;wlst½ dh ekU;rk ds fy, ;g vko’;d ‘krZ gS] fd ,slk fjokt U;k;laxr] rdZlaxr gksuk pkfg,] lkFk gh bUgs uSfrdrk vkSj yksduhfr ds fo:) Hkh ugh gksuk pkfg,A ;gk¡ tc orZeku lUnHkZ esa bl fjokt dks ns[krs gS rks ;g fuf’pr :Ik ls u rks U;k;laxr Bgjrk gS vkSj u gh rdZ laxr Bgjrk gS vkSj lkFk gh uSfrdrk rFkk yksduhfr ds Hkh f[kykQ Bgjrk gS D;ksfda dksbZ Hkh efgyk ftldk ifr ej x;k gks] og uSfrdrk vkSj yksduhfr ds fygkt ls] nwljh ‘kknh djus dk gd] vf/kdkj j[krh gS vkSj ,slk djus ls jksdrk vius vkiesa fuf’pr :i ls u rks rdZlaxr gS vkSj u U;k;laxr gh gSA ;gk¡ ;g Hkh ,d egRoiw.kZ rF; gS fd fczfV’k dky es 1856 esa fgUnw fo/kok iquZfookg ds fy, vf/kfu;e ikfjr dj fn;k x;k Fkk rFkk bl dkuwuh dh ekStwnxh es rks ,slk fjokt fuf’pr gh viuh rkfdZdrk [kks nsrk gS vkSj vius vkiesa uSfrdrk U;k; vkSj yksduhfr ds fo:) gks tkrk gSA ;gk¡ fo}ku vf/koDrk izfroknhx.k dk ;g rdZ jgk gS fd mDr dkuwu dks jktLFkku es 1950 esa viuk;k x;k] fdUrq i=koyh ij ,slh dksbZ lk{; mUgksus is’k ugh dh gS] ftlls ;g Li”V gksrk gks fd lwjtnsoh o vksadkjnŸk us ‘kknh 1950 ls igys gh dj yh FkhA ;gk¡ i=koyh ij ;g Li”V :i ls vk;k gS fd oknh dk tUe tuojh 1963 esa gqvk Fkk vkSj bl izdkj bl vk/kkj ij bl ckr dks Li”V rkSj ij dgk tk ldrk gS fd lwjtnsoh o vksadkjnŸk us ‘kknh Hkh jkTkLFkku esa bl vf/kfu;e dks viuk ysus ds ckn gh gqbZ FkhA bl izdkj Åij mYysf[kr rF;ksa ds izdk’k esa] ;g dgk tk ldrk gSa fd vkSdkjanŸk] lqjtnsoh dh ‘kknh vius vki es ,d oS/k ‘kknh Fkh vkSj mlls mRiUu oknh vkSj vk’kk dk vksadkjnŸk lwjtnsoh ls tUeus ds ckjs es dksbZ la’k; ugh gS vkSj bl RkF; ij bl vnkyr us vius iwoZ fu.kZ; fnuakd 10-9-91 esa rudh la+5 dh foospuk es Hkh Li”V :i ls izdk’k Mkyk gS rFkk i=koyh ij f’k{kk ds lfVZfQdsV] jk’kudkMZ] oksVjfyLV] VªLVukek vkfn nLrkostksa ls KkunŸk dk lqjtnsoh vksadkjnŸk ls iSnk gksuk vkSj mudk iq= gksrk Hkyh Hkkafr lkfcr gS] izfroknh Hkh bl rF; dks Lohdkj djrk gS] ysfdu mldk rdZ dsoy ;gh jgk gS fd mDr nksuks larkus] KkunŸk] vk’kk mudh oS/k larkus ugh Fkh ftldks Åij dh foospuk ds vuq:i vLohdkj dj fn;k x;k gS vkSj ,slk ekus tkus dk dksbZ rdZlaxr vk/kkj ugh jgk gSA vr% ;g rudh fo:) izfroknhx.k r; dh tkrh gSA rudh la-&vkB ^^vk;k izfroknh la-&nks] ds }kjk izfroknh la- eksrhyky ds i{k esa fnuakd 11-1-1983 dks fu”ikfnr ,oa fnukad 19-1-83 dks lc jftLVªkj] chdkusj ds ;gk¡ iathd`r cspkuukek dks fujLr djokus ds laca/k es gq, bl nkos esa oknh us oSdfYid vk/kkj ij vxzØ;kf/kdkj ¼izh,E’ku½ dk vuqrks”k pkgk gS] ftl ij dksbZ U;k;’kqYd vnk ugh gksus dh lwjr esa oknh dk nkok pys ;ksX; ugh gS\^^ bl rudh dks lkfcr djus dk Hkkj izfroknhx.k ij gS] ftls og vius i{k es lkfcr djus es foQy jgs gSA ;gk¡ ewy vuwrks”k oknh us vius vkidks ekfyd ekurs gq, cS;ukek fujLr fd, tkus ds laca/k es gS vkSj vxj U;k;ky; ,slk lkfcr ugh ekurk gS rks cRkkSj oSdfYid vuwrks”k mldks fookfnr lEifŸk dk dks’ks;j ¼lg&fgLlsnkj½ ds crkSj vxzØ;kf/kdkj iznku fd;k tk,A ;gk¡ rudh la-&7 oknh ds i{k es r; gqbZ gS vkSj mlds vk/kkj ij bls fookfnr Hkw[k.M dk ekfyd ekuk x;k gS vkSj bl vk/kkj ij cS;ukek fujLr djkus ds vf/kdkj dks og lkfcr djus es lQy jgk gS vkSj bl izdkj ewy vuwrks”k gh] mls fn, tkus dks] nkos esa mfpr ik;k x;k gS] ,slh fLFkfr esa] oSdfYid vuqrks”k vFkkZr vxzØ;f/kdkj dk vuqrks”k fn, tkus dh dksbZ vko’;drk ugh jg xbZ gSA oSls Hkh tgk¡ ,d gh fo”k; oLrq rFkk ,d gh okndkj.k ds laca/k es oSdfYid vuqrks”k dh ekax dh tkrh gks ogk¡ dksVZ Qh’k ,DV ds vuqlkj ftl vuqrks”k dk eqY;kadu lcls T;knk gksrk gS ml ij gh dksVZ&Qh’k ns; gksrh gSA ;gk¡ cs;ukek esa ftruh foØ; jkf’k fy[kh gqbZ gS] ml lkjh jkf’k dh oknh us dksVZ Qh’k vnk dj j[kh gS] ,slh fLFkfr es] vxj og vxzØ;f/kdkj ds oSdfYid vuqrks”k dk gdnkj gksrk] rks Hkh] vyx ls blds fy, dksVZ&Qh’k nsus dh vko’;drk ugh FkhA oSls Hkh vxj dkuwuh ds vuqlkj vxj bl oSdfYid vuqrks”k ds fy, vyx ls dksV&Qh’k nsuk vko’;d gksrk] rks Hkh] ;g vk/kkj vius vkiesa nkos dks fujLr djus dk ugha curk gS] cfYd ns; dksVZ&Qh’k ckn es Hkh tek djkus dk oknh ds i{k es vf/kdkj curk gSA bu leLr rF;ks ds izdk’k esa ;g rudh fo:) izfroknhx.k r; dh tkrh gSA rudh la- & ukS ^^vk;k izfroknh la- & ,d] eksrhyky fookfnr ifjlj dk iw.kZ izfrQy vnk djus okyk l)kfod Øsrk gS\^^ ;g rudh izfroknhx.k ds ftEes gS] ftls og vius i{k esa lkfcr djus es foQy jgs gSA tSlk fd izfroknh eksrhyky] Lo;a vius tokcnkok vkSj lk{; esa ;g dFku fd;k gS fd fookfnr ckM+s dks mlus igys vksdkajnŸk ls ekax dj dke ysus ds fy, fy;k Fkk vkSj bl ij fuekZ.k dk;Z djok fy;k vkSj 1996 ls blesa cjkcj og dkfct pyk vk jgk gS vkSj bl izdkj izfrdwy dCtk ds vk/kkj ij og bldk ekfyd cu x;k gSA izfroknh ds bl dFku ls ;g Li”V gS fd og oknh o izfroknh lsa-&nks] vFkkZr nksuks HkkbZ;ksa] buds firk vkSj mudh larkuks dh iwjh tkudkjh j[krk Fkk] Hkys gh mls VªLVukek izn’kZ-&1 dh tkudkjh ugha Hkh jgh gks rks Hkh bruk mls t:j ekywe Fkk fd mDr lEifŸk vksadkjnŸk oknh o izfroknh la-&nks ds gkFkks es iSf=d lEifŸk gS rFkk oknh vksadkjnŸk dk iq= gS vkSj bl fookfnr lEifŸk ij mldk Hkh dksbZ u dksbZ n[ky vo’; gS\ bu ifjfLFkfr;ks ds pyrs] ;g mldh dkuwuh ftEesnkjh Fkh fd og Ø; djus ls igys oknh dks mldh cfgu vk’kk] lwjtnsoh vkfn vksadkjnŸk ds lHkh okfjlku dks] blds ekfydkuk gd o foHkktu vkfn vxj dksbZ gqvk gS rks mlds vk/kkj ij fdl okfjl ds gd esa ;g lEifŸk jgh gS] vkfn ckrksa dh tkudkjh dj ysuh pkfg, FkhA vxj og ,slk djrk rks oknh ds gd] vf/kdkjksa dh tkudkjh mlds lkeus vk tkrh vkSj bl izdkj ;g dgk tk ldrk gSa fd izfroknh eksrhyky us ;qfDr;qDr lko/kkuh [kjhnus ls igys ugh cjrh vkSj os bl dkj.k vius vki esa ,d l)kfod Øsrk ugha gSA bl izdkj ;g rudh izfroknhx.k ds fo:) r; dh tkrh gSA rudh la- & nl bu rudh dks lkfcr djus dk Hkkj izfroknhx.k ij Fkk] ftls os vius i{k esa lkfcr djus es foQy jgs gSA ;gk¡ ;g ckr iw.kZr;k Li”V gS fd fookfnr lEifŸk iSf=d lEifŸk gS vkSj bl rF;k dks nksuks gh i{kdkj Lohdkj djrs gSA tgk¡ oknh vius nkos ds iSjk ls-&nks esa bldks Li”V :i ls iSf=d lEifŸk dg jgk gS] ogha izfroknhx.k us tokcnkok esa bldks iSf=d lEifŸk gksuk dgk gS vkSj bl izdkj ;g fufoZokfnr :i ls lkfcr gS fd fookfnr lEifŸk ,d iSf=d lEifŸk gSA vc vxj ge bldks iSf=d lEifŸk ds ukrs] vksadkjnŸk ds okfjlu ds fgLls esa vk;s fgr vkSj vf/kdkjksa ds ckjs es fopkj djrs gS rks Li”V gS fd oknh o izfroknh la-&nks dks ‘kkfey djrs gq, vksadkj nŸk ds lHkh okfjlku dk blesa fgr vkSj vf/kdkj gS] ;g Hkh ,d Lohd`r rF; gS fd VªLVukek izn’kZ&1] ,d jftLVMZ VªLVukek gS vkSj bl ckcr Åij dh rudh esa Li”V foospuk dh tkdj ;g Li”V gks x;k gS fd ;g VªLVukek vksadkjnŸk mldh ifRu lwjth nsoh o izfroknh la- nks] nqxkZnŸk us oknh ds i{k esa rgjhj fd;k gS vkSj blds ek/;e ls fookfnr ckM+k dk iw.kZ LokfeRo o vf/kdkjh oknh dks lkSai fn;k gSA bl izdkj Hkys gh izfroknh la-&nks] ds vf/kdkj bl iSf=d lEifŸk esa tUe ls gh cu x;k Fkk] IkjUrq mlus LoSPN;kiwoZd bu vf/kdkjksa dks vius HkkbZ vFkkZr oknh ds i{k esa R;kx fn;k gS vkSj blfy, bl vk/kkj ij dksbZ gd vc bldk fookfnr lEifŸk es ‘ks”k ugh jg x;k gS vkSj bl izdkj mDr lEifŸk dks cpus dk Hkh dksbZ Hkh vf/kdkj mlds ikl ugh jg x;k FkkA vc vxj ge] ,d feuV ds fy,] ;g eku ys fd oknh us fdlh vkSj nkos esa bldks vksadkjnŸk dh LovftZr lEifŸk dgk Fkk vkSj iSf=d lEifŸk gksus ls bUdkj fd;k Fkk] rks ml fLFkfr esa oSls gh vkSdkjnŸk dks bl lEifŸk dks oknh dks nsus ds lkjs vf/kdkj] dkuwuh rkSj ij izkIr FksA bl izdkj la{ksi esa ;g dgk tk ldrk gS fd Hkys gh bl lEifŸk dks Lo&vftZr LkEifŸk Hkh eku ys] ;|fi ,slk bl nkos esa lkfcr ugh gqvk gS rks Hkh oknh ds i{k esa bl lac/k es tks VªLVukek izn’kZ&1 gqvk gS] og vius vkiesa dkuwulaxr Bgjrk gS vkSj bl vk/kkj ij Hkh LkEifŸk dk LokfeRo blh dk curk gSA bl izdkj ;g rudh fo:) izfroknhx.k r; dh tkrh gSA pwafd rudh la- lkr] vkB] ukS vkSj nl vFkkZr~ vfrfjDr pkjks rudh;kr izfroknhx.k ds f[kykQ r; dh xbZ gS vkSj bl izdkj tks iwoZ esa tks fu.kZ; bl vnkyr us fnuakd 10-9-91 dks ikfjr fd;k Fkk] mls ;Fkkor j[ks tkus ds vkns’k fn;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr Bgjrk gSA vkns’k mijksDr vfrfjDr la- & lkr] vkB] ukS vkSj nl dh foospuk ds ifj.kkeLo:i vkns’k fn;k tkrk gS fd iwoZ esa bl U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 10-9-1991 ;Fkkor j[kk tkrk gSA Sd/- ¼>kcjey tkV½ flfoy U;k;k/kh’k ¼ofj”B [k.M½ chdkusj ¼jktLFkku½^^ 6. The first appeal filed by the appellants/defendants, legal representatives of original defendant, Motilal, being Appeal No.37/09-LR's of Motilal Vs. The first appeal filed by the appellants/defendants, legal representatives of original defendant, Motilal, being Appeal No.37/09-LR's of Motilal Vs. Gyandutt @ Gyan Prakash & Anr., also came to be dismissed by the learned first appellate court of Additional District Judge (FT) No.2, Bikaner, vide judgment and decree dated 28.01.2011 with the following findings while affirming of the findings of the trial court: - ^^26- bl izdkj ;fn ge mHk; i{kks dh ekSf[kd o izys[kh; lk{; dks n`f”Vxr j[krs gq, ns[ksa] rks bl ckr esa dksbZ lUnsg ugh gS fd vksadkjnŸk] lwjtnsoh o nqxkZnŸk us VªLVukek izn’kZ-1 fu”ikfnr fd;k FkkA ge vihykFkhZ ds bl rdZ ls lger ugh gS fd mDr izn’kZ-1 esa Hkkx ,e ls ,u esa nqxkZnŸk us blds fu”iknu dks Lohdkj ugh djuk vfadr fd;k gSA gekjs }kjk cgl ds nkSjku oknh }kjk mDr VªLVukek izn’kZ-1 ewy dks izLrqr fd;k gS ftldk feyku djus ij ;g ik;k x;k fd i=koyh ij miyC/k izn’kZ-1 dh QksVks izfr gw&c&gw gSA blesa Li”V :Ik ls ;g vafdr gS fd ^^uksV&Jh nqxkZnŸk tUe ls vU/ks gS ftUgsa ;g nLrkost i<++dj lquk;k rks mUgksaus lgh gksuk Lohdkj fd;kA^^ vr% gekjs fouez erkuqlkj izfroknh dk ;g dFku iw.kZr;k fujk/kkj gS fd bl Hkkx es ^^Lohdkj ugh fd;k^^ gksuk vafdr gSA blds vfrfjDr ;g lkekU;&lh ckr gS fd ;fn mi&iathd ds lkeus nqxkZnŸk bls Lohdkj ugh djrk rks mi&iathd fdlh Hkh fLFkfr esa bls iathd`r ugh djrkA ;g ,d yksd nLrkost gS ftls ;fn l{ke izkf/kdkjh us iathd`r fd;k gS rks ,slh fLFkfr esa dksbZ Hkh foijhr mi/kkj.kk ugh dk;e dh tk ldrh gSA ;g lgh gS fd cgl ds nkSjku vihykFkhZ ds vf/koDrk us ,d nLrkost dh izekf.kr izfr gekjs le{k izLrqr dh gS ftlesa uhps uksV esa ^^lgh gksuk Lohdkj ugh fd;k^^ gksuk vafdr gSA izFke ckr rks ;g gS fd mDr nLrkost vihykFkhZ }kjk fopkj.k U;k;ky; esa izLrqr ugh fd;k gS] u gh fof/kuqlkj bl U;k;ky; ea izLrqr fd;k gS] vr% ek= cgl ds le; bl nLrkost dks izLrqr djus ls bl nLrkost ds lUnHkZ esa dksbZ ldkjkRed mi/kkj.kk vihykFkhZ ds i{k esa ugh dh tk ldrh gSA nwljh egRoiw.kZ ckr ;g gS fd tc U;k;ky; esa esy vfHkys[k ekStwn gS] mldh QksVks izfr miyC/k gS o bl vk/kkj ij leLr nhokuh U;k;ky;ksa us i<+dj bl ^^ugh^^ ‘kCn ds vfLrRo ls bUdkj fd;k gS] rks vc ;g rdZ ekus tkus ;ksX; izrhr ugh gksrk gSA ;fn dYiuk ds rkSj ij ;g ekuktkos fd mDr izekf.kr izfr tks fd mia&ithd foHkkx ds ewy vfHkys[k dh udy djds iath;u iqfLrdk la- 1 ds izk:Ik es ntZ dh tkrh gS] ;fn fLyi vk¡Q iSu ds dkj.k ^^ugh^^ fy[k fn;k x;k] rks ‘ks”k lqn<+ ekSf[kd o izys[kh; lk{; dks udkjk ugh tk ldrk gSA blds lkFk&lkFk ;fn vihykFkhZ bl nLrkost ls dksbZ ykHk mBkuk pkgrk Fkk rks og bl nLrkost ds lUnHkZ es bls U;k;ky; esa izLrqr dj viuh lk{; ds ek/;e ls Li”V dj ldrk Fkk o bl gsrq mi&iathd dks lk{; gsrq ryc dj ijhf{kr djok ldrk Fkk] ijUrq Lohd`r :Ik ls vihykFkhZ }kjk ,slk dqN ugh fd;k x;k gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa ek= iath;u iqfLrdk ds fdlh ^^fLyi vk¡Q iSu^^ dks iwoZ foospu ds izdk’k esa [k.Mu ;ksX; lk{; ds :Ik es ugh ekuk tk ldrk gSA bl nLrkost ds fu”iknu dks bl nLrkost ds ys[kd us o blds vuqizek.kd lkf{k;ksa us Hkh Hkyh izdkj ls lkfcr fd;k gS o lcls egRoiw.kZ ckr ;g Hkh gS fd Lo; izfroknh nqxkZnŸk lk{; gsrq U;k;ky; esa mifLFkr ugh vk;k gS] ,slh n’kk esa ek= izfroknh eksrhyky dh lquh&lqukbZ ckrks dks nLrkost dh rqyuk esa dksbZ egRo ugha fn;k tk ldrk gSA ;gka ;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd nksuksa izfroknhx.k }kjk la;qDr :i ls tokc nkok izLrqr fd;k x;k gS] ,slh fLFkfr esa ;g Hkh ugh ekuk tk ldrk fd oknh ,oa izfroknh la-2 nqxkZnŸk ds e/; dksbZ nqjfHk lfU/k fo|eku gSA 27- bl izdkj tgka rd lEcU/k nLrkost izn’kZ&1 ds fu”iknu dk gS ;g nLrkost iw.kZr;k gj izdkj ls lkfcr ik;k tkrk gSA 28- vc tgka rd lEcU/k vksadkjnŸk o lwjtnsoh ds fookg dh oS/kkfudrk dk gS] pawfd oknhx.k ds leLr xokgku us ,d Loj esa bl ckr dks lkfcr fd;k gS fd vksadkjnŸk us lwjtnsoh ls fookg fd;k Fkk o Lo;a izfroknhx.k Hkh bl ckr dks Lohdkj djrs gS fd KkunŸk o vk’kk lwjtnsoh dh gh lUrku gSA izfroknhx.k }kjk ,slh dksbZ lk{; izLrqr ugh dh gS ftlls ;g ekuk tk lds fd mDr fookg cky fo/kok fookg gksus ds dkj.k ekU; ugh gSA ;g Lohd`r fof/k gS fd dksbZ Hkh fo/kok viu ifr dh e`R;q ds i’pkr iquZfookg dj ldrh gSA tgak rd lEcU/k mDr fookg ds fu”ksf/kr fMxzh esa vkus dk gS] izFke ckr rks ;g fd Lohd`r :i ls cqykdhnkl tks fd lwjtnsoh dk izFke ifr Fkk] og vksadkjnŸk dk lxk HkkbZ ugh gS cfYd pkj& ikap ihf<+;ks nwj dk HkkbZ gSA pkj&ikap ihf<+;ks nwj ds HkkbZ dh fo/kok bl fu”ksf/kr fM+xzh esa vkrh gks] ,slk vihykFkhZx.k }kjk dksbZ dkuwu gekjs le{k izLrqr ugh fd;k gS og ;fn ,d {k.k ds fy, mDr HkkbZ dh ifjHkk”kk esa nwj ih<+h dk HkkbZ Hkh ekus] rks Hkh ;fn fdlh lekt esa ,slk dLVe gks rks ;g fookg voS/k o vekU; ugh gksrk gSA izfroknhx.k dh lk{; ls ;g rks Li”V fLFkfr fudyrh gS fd lwjtnsoh vksadkjnŸk ds lkFk jgrh Fkh o oknhx.k }kjk izLrqr le{k nLrkosth lk{; ls ;g Hkh Lohd`r o lqn<+ fLFkfr gS fd lwjtnsoh us lEkLr LFkkuks ij uke vksadkjnŸk dh iRuh ds :i es ntZ gSA izfroknhx.k dh lk{; ls ;g Hkh Li”V gS fd dHkh iq”dj.kk lekt }kjk vksadkjnŸk dks lekt ls cfg”d`r Hkh ugh fd;k gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa izfroknhx.k mDr dLVe dks uk&lkfcr djus es iw.kZr;k vlQy jgs gSA ,d {k.k ds fy, bl ‘kknh dks izkjEHkr% O;FkZ o ‘kwU; Hkh ekus] rks Hkh gekjs fouez erkuqlkj bl izdj.k ds rF;ksa ij dksbZ foijhr izHkko ugh iM+rk gS D;ksfd oknh dk leLr dsl VªLVukek izn’kZ&1 ij vk/kkfjr gSA bl VªLVukek esa Li”V :i ls mDr lEifŸk dk ckfyx gksus ds i’pkr KkunŸk dks Lokeh gksuk dFku fd;k x;k gS o bl leLr fLFkfr dks Lo;a nqxkZnŸk Hkh Lohdkj djrk gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa fdlh r`rh; i{k vFkkZr~ eksrhyky ;k fdlh vU; dks mDr VªLVukesa dks vekU; djus dk dksbZ vf/kdkj izrhr ugh gksrk gSA bl izdkj gekjs le{k fookg dh oS/kkfudrk dh voS/kkfudrk dk T;knk fookn ‘ks”k ugh jgk tkrk gS] ijUrq iwoZ foospu ls ;g Li”V gS fd ;g fookg izkjEHkr% O;FkZ o ‘kwU; gks] ,slk izfroknhx.k fdlh Hkh izdkj Li”V ugh dj ik, gS] o bl VªLVukek izn’kZ&1 ftl ij Lo;a nqxkZnŸk dh vaxwBk fu’kkuh Hkh gS] esa Hkh mDr fookg o leLr fLFkfr;ksa dks Hkyh izdkj Lohdkj fd;k gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa eksrhyky r`rh; i{k dks bl lUnHkZ esa vk{ksi djus dk dksbZ fof/kd vf/kdkj izkIr ugh gksrk gS o ;fn nqxkZnŸk us fdlh izdkj dh dksbZ lgefr ;k Lohd`fr ;k vius fdlh lEifŸk ds vf/kdkj dk R;kx bl VªLVukek izn’kZ&1 ds ek/;e ls dj fn;k gS rks eksrhyky dks fookg dh oS/krk o vf/kdkj ds vk/kkj ij bu leLr rF;ksa dks pqukSrh nsus dk dksbZ vf/kdkj ‘ks”k ugh jgrk gSA ge vihykFkhZ ds fo}ku vf/koDrk }kjk izLrqr U;kf;d fofu’p;ksa es viuh iw.kZr;k lgefr o vkLFkk O;Dr djrs gS] ijUrq bu iazdj.kks ds rF; orZeku izdj.k ls iw.kZr;k fHkUu gksus ds dkj.k ;s fdlh Hkh izdkj orZeku izdj.k ds rF;ksa o ifjfLFkfr;ksa ij ykxw gksuk ugh ik, tkrs gS] o u gh blls vihykFkhZ dks fdlh Hkh izdkj dk dksbZ ldkjkRed lg;ksx izkIr gksuk ugh ik;k tkrk gSA 29- bl izdkj oknh dh lk{; ls ;g iw.kZr;k lkfcr gksrk gS fd og VªLVukek izn’kZ-1 ds vuqlkj bl lEifŸk dk vdsyk Lokeh gS o izfroknh dh lk{; ls ;g drbZ lkfcr ugha gS fd lwjtnsoh vksadkjnŸk dh ekU; iRuh ugha gks o KkunŸk o vk’kk vksadkjnŸk ds iq=&iq=h ugh gksA bl izdkj fook|d la-1 dk fu.kZ; oknh ds i{k esa o izfroknhx.k ds fo:) rFkk fook|d la-7 dk fu.kZ; izfroknhx.k ds fo:) o oknh ds i{k esa fofuf’pr fd;k tkrk gSA xxx vkns’k vr% vihykFkhZx.k HkkxhjFk oxSjk dh ;g vihy fo:) izR;FkhZx.k KkunŸk oxSjk vLohdkj dh tkdj [kkfjt dh tkrh gS rFkk v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; ,oa fMØh fnukad 10-9-91 ,oa fu.kZ;@fu”d”kZ fnukad 17-12-05 dh lEiqf”V dh tkrh gSA vihy O;; i{kdkjku viuk&viuk ogu djsaxsA blh vuqlkj fMØh ipkZ cuk;k tkosA Sd/- ¼cztsUnz dqekj tSu½ vij ftyk ,oa ls’ku U;k;k/kh’k ¼QkLV Vsªd½ la-&2 chdkusj ¼jkt-½^^ 7. Mr. D.R. Bhandari and Mr. Mahesh Joshi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellants/defendant, legal representatives of Motilal, submitted that the concurrent findings given by the courts below against the defendant No.2, Durgadutt, who is son of Onkardutt, and the present defendant, Motilal, cancelling the sale-deed dated 11.01.1983 executed by Durgadutt in favour of Motilal, are perverse and not sustainable and several substantial questions of law arise in the present case. Questioning the validity of marriage of Smt. Suraj Bai, with Onkardutt in the first instance as said Smt. Suraj Bai, was widow of his cousin brother of Onkardutt and, therefore, it fell within the prohibited category as per Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the courts below have wrongly held such marriage to a valid marriage, which is wrong and, therefore, the plaintiff, Gyandutt @ Gyan Prakash, born out of such invalid marriage being an illegitimate child of Onkardutt, could not claim any share in the said property, which was ancestral property of late Sh. Jamnadutt @ Dodji, grand-father of defendant No.2 Durgadutt and, therefore, he had no right to question the sale-deed executed by the Durgadutt, the blind man, in favour of defendant, Motilal; and for this reason the impugned judgments of the learned courts below deserve to be set aside. Secondly, they also sought to rely upon the certified copy of the Trust-deed aforesaid executed by Onkardutt, Suraj Devi and Durgadutt, in favour of his son Gyandutt @ Gyan Prakash, which includes the suit property, a plot of land (Bara), in the Schedule attached to the said Trust-deed also on the basis of the Note appended in the said certified copy of the Trust-deed, produced by the defendants for the first time before the first appellate court below, which apparently gives a negative meaning to the Trust-deed and which has been discussed by the court below, by insertion of word “No” ¼ugh½ in the stipulation regarding reading out of that Trust-deed to the blind executant Sh. Durgadutt and that he did not agree to the execution of the same, the Note as reproduced in the certified copy supplied of the same Sub-Registrar i.e. Sh. Chaturbhuj Arora, is also quoted herein below for ready reference: - ^^uksV&Jh nqxkZnŸk tUe ls vU/ks gS ftUgsa ;g nLrkost i<+dj lquk;k x;k rks mUgksus lgh gksuk Lohdkj ^^ugh^^ fd;kA 8. Durgadutt and that he did not agree to the execution of the same, the Note as reproduced in the certified copy supplied of the same Sub-Registrar i.e. Sh. Chaturbhuj Arora, is also quoted herein below for ready reference: - ^^uksV&Jh nqxkZnŸk tUe ls vU/ks gS ftUgsa ;g nLrkost i<+dj lquk;k x;k rks mUgksus lgh gksuk Lohdkj ^^ugh^^ fd;kA 8. Learned counsel for the appellants/defendants, Mr. D.R. Bhandari and Mr. Mahesh Joshi, therefore, submitted that no reliance could have been placed by the courts below on the said Trust-deed and in view of the same no rights accruing in favour of plaintiff/decree-holder Gyandutt @ Gyan Prakash by virtue of said Trust-deed, the execution of the sale-deed of the present suit property, plot of land, measuring 240 square yards only situated in Bikaner, could not be questioned by him. In the alternative, they have also submitted that since the property was ancestral, therefore, both defendant No.2, Durgadutt and the plaintiff, Gyandutt, being the sons of late Sh. Onkardutt, had equal share in the said suit property and, therefore, to the extent of share of Durgadutt, the sale made by him in favour of defendant, Motilal could not have been set aside by the courts below. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants also raised a feeble argument that creation of the Trust in favour of Gyandutt @ Gyan Prakash, by the aforesaid registered Trust-deed (Ex.1) was also in contravention of Section 7 read with Section 9 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882. 10. Per contra, Mr. D.D. Chitlangi, learned counsel for the first respondent/plaintiff (decree-holder) vehemently opposed the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants/defendants and submitted and in the first instance that the production of certified copy of the registered trust-deed by the defendants with a negative stipulation in the note about the consent of the defendant No.2, Durgadutt, to the execution of the Trust-Deed (Ex.1) was a clear forgery committed by the defendants so as to raise a doubt about the reliability of the said Trust-deed executed in favour of beneficiary i.e. plaintiff, namely, Gyandutt @ Gyan Prakash. The word “No” ¼ugh½ is a deliberate insertion or interpolation in the Note appended clearly recorded by the then Sub-Registrar, Mr. The word “No” ¼ugh½ is a deliberate insertion or interpolation in the Note appended clearly recorded by the then Sub-Registrar, Mr. Chaturbhuj Arora, who for the reasons best known to him, while issuing the certified copy to the defendants, which was produced by them before the court below, the word “No” ¼ugh½ appears in the said note about the consent of Durgadutt in the certified copy only but not in the original Trust-Deed. Mr. D.D. Chitlangi, learned counsel for the plaintiff, Gyandutt @ Gyan Prakash, emphasized that had the said defendant No.2, Durgadutt, not given his consent, the Trust-deed executed in favour of Gyandutt @ Gyan Prakash, would have been treated as an invalid trust and would not have been registered at all, and this what has been held by the first appellate court below while questioning the validity of the so-called certified copy of the Trust-deed produced by the defendants before the appellate court below. 11. Learned counsel for the plaintiff, Gyandutt @ Gyan Prakash,, Mr. D.D. Chitlangi, also relied upon a order passed by a coordinate bench of this Court in SBCWP No.2508/2006-Hanuman Bux & Ors. Vs. Shri Niwas & Ors., decided on 17.07.2007 (though the defendant Motilal was not a party to the said case), in which this Court also examined the same registered Trust-Deed, in respect to some other property (mentioned in the Schedule attached to the said registered Trust-Deed, reproduced above), in which for taking a secondary evidence on record, while examining the said trust deed, the coordinate bench of this Court also rejected the contention and held as under: - “CIVIL WRIT No.2508 of 2006 HANUMAN BUX & ORS. V/S . SHRI NIWAS & ORS. Mr. SAJJAN SINGH, for the appellant/petitioner. Mr. D.D. CHITLANGI, for the respondent. Date of Order: 17.7.2007 HON'BLE SHRI N.P. GUPTA, J. ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent has shown for perusal of the Court, the original trust deed, and from perusal of the original which was shown to the learned counsel for the petitioner also it does not transpire that there ever existed the word ¼ugh½ so much so that the language of endorsement is not continuous writing containing no over-writing, nor erases, nor any space to indicate that there existed some word which does not exist, or some different word existed. In that view of the matter, finding recorded by the learned trial court, about there being no material alternations in the document, does not require any interference. That being the position, the other part of the order deciding the application under Section 151 read with Section 45 Evidence Act also does not require any interference. So far as the direction of the learned trial court to the effect that objection about admissibility of the evidence can be decided at the time of final hearing is concerned, that also become meaningless in view of the aforesaid findings recorded by the learned trial court, and affirmed by this Court. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed with the aforesaid observations. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent that vide order dt. 9.11.2004, the learned trial court was directed to decide the suit expeditiously. Obviously that direction stands.” 12. The original Trust-deed produced by the learned counsel for the plaintiff before this Court also was carefully examined by this Court and the Court found the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff as true and correct that the word “No” ¼ugh½ is not there in the original Trust-Deed (Ex.1).Therefore, how the word “No” or ¼ugh½ came in the certified copy, could be a matter of investigation. 13. Since, the said certified copy was produced by the defendants and the said word “No” can give them some benefit, there is a reasonable ground to suspect that the said word “No” ¼ugh½ was inserted at their instance by the concerned clerk, who has typed out the said certified copy and Note therein containing the said word ¼ugh½ (No) about the consent of the second respondent/defendant, Durgadutt and the officer who has issued the said certified copy of the Trust-Deed. The said word ¼ugh½ also appears in the copy of the same document produced along with an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, before this Court on 22.04.2011, which Note has been reproduced in the handwriting of same Sub-Registrar, Mr. Chaturbhuj Arora. 14. The said word ¼ugh½ also appears in the copy of the same document produced along with an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, before this Court on 22.04.2011, which Note has been reproduced in the handwriting of same Sub-Registrar, Mr. Chaturbhuj Arora. 14. Though at this belated stage also, an investigation or prosecution could be directed by this Court against the erring persons, who had issued the certified copy of the Trust-deed contrary to the original, which is a registered document, and the beneficiaries of such manipulated certified copy, namely, the defendants Durgadutt and Motilal but since the said certified copy appears to have been issued long back on 01.12.1973 itself, about 42 years ago, this Court is refraining from directing the prosecution of the concerned persons in the matter at this stage and would only approve and affirm the findings of facts recorded by the two courts below on the true and correct interpretation of the original Trust-deed, quoted above, which bears the positive consent of the second respondent/defendant Durgadutt in executing the said Trust-deed but, who executed later on the impugned sale-deed in favour of the defendant, Motilal, despite the execution of the Trust-Deed (Ex.1). 15. The findings of facts recorded on all the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants/defendants about the validity of marriage of Smt. Suraj Bai with Onkardutt and legitimacy of the plaintiff-Gyandutt @ Gyan Prakash being the son of Onkardutt, validity of registered Trust-deed and right of the plaintiff to challenge the impugned sale-deed, have been rightly decided by the courts below on the basis of findings of facts arrived at upon by them and this Court finds no perversity in the same giving raise to any substantial question of law for further consideration by this Court under Section 100 of CPC, 1908. 16. A word about the last and feeble argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellants/defendants about the said Trust being in violation of Sections 7 and 9 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, deserves a mention. The said contention is ex-facie not sustainable because Section 7 clearly permits a trust to be created by every person competent to contract. The capacity to contract of the father of Durgadutt S/o Sh. Onkardutt is not in doubt from any angle. The said issue also does not appear to have been raised before the courts below. The said contention is ex-facie not sustainable because Section 7 clearly permits a trust to be created by every person competent to contract. The capacity to contract of the father of Durgadutt S/o Sh. Onkardutt is not in doubt from any angle. The said issue also does not appear to have been raised before the courts below. Clause (b) of Section 7 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 is not attracted in the present case because the Trust in question is not being created by or on behalf of a minor. The beneficiary of the Trust, i.e. plaintiff Gyandutt @ Gyan Prakash, could be a minor, then, but beneficiary is not covered by the mischief of sub-clause (b) of Section 7 of the said Act, which provides that even in the case of minor, a trust can be crated with the permission of a principal civil court of original jurisdiction, by or on behalf of a minor. Therefore, the aforesaid contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants/defendants is noticed only to be rejected as not applicable to the facts of the present case. 17. This Court also does not find any semblance of reasonableness in the said argument raised by the leaned counsel for the appellants/defendants about the validity of marriage of Smt. Suraj Bai, with Onkardutt, who married the said Onkardutt, after death of his previous wife/wives. At the time of his third marriage with Suraj Bai, the said marriage did not fall within the mischief of prohibited category of Section 5 of the H.M. Act. Even though, no evidence was led by the defendants to prove before the courts below that said marriage was not valid, even if it is assumed for arguments' sake that previous husband of said Smt. Suraj Bai, who happened to be distant cousin brother of Onkardutt, still there is nothing on record to establish any such prohibition against her marrying Onkardutt after death of her previous husband, namely, Bulaki. Even otherwise, the right of even a illegitimate child in whose favour the valid Trust was created with the consent of defendant No.2, Durgadutt, who is the seller of the impugned sale in the present case it also cannot be permitted to be questioned by the purchaser under such sale-deed, namely, the appellant/defendant-Motilal or his legal representatives at this stage. 18. 18. Therefore, viewed from any angle, this Court is satisfied that the courts below have rightly appreciated the evidence on record and have rightly cancelled the sale-deed dated 11.01.1983 executed by the defendant, Durgadutt S/o Sh. Onkardutt, in favour of original defendant, Motilal, and no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal for further consideration by this Court. 19. The legal representatives of original defendant, Motilal, who are in possession of the suit property, namely, the plot of land (“Bara”) in question under the impugned sale-deed dated 11.01.1983 and are yet to hand over the possession of the said suit property to the plaintiff, namely, Gyandutt @ Gyan Prakash (decree holder), it is directed that they shall hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit plot of land to the plaintiff/decree-holder within a period of three months from today and they will not create any third party right in the same, otherwise the same shall be treated as void and such third party will also be bound by this decree. 20. The present second appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. A copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned parties and both the courts below forthwith.