Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1938 (ALL)

Ram Das v. Sheo Das

2023-08-10

JASPREET SINGH

body2023
JUDGMENT Jaspreet Singh, J. The instant two appeals arise out of two suits filed for cancellation of two sale deeds, both executed by Sri Krishnanand in favour of Sri Shiv Das, Shiv Dulare and Jagannath. The first sale deed allegedly executed by Sri Krishnanand is dated 24.11.1964 which was challenged in Regular Suit No. 153 of 1966 instituted before Munsif, North, Sultanpur by Sri Krishnanand against the defendants seeking cancellation. 2. During the pendency of the said suit bearing No. 153 of 1966 Sri Krishnanand expired and thereafter Sri Shambhu Dutt claiming to be the legal heir of Sri Krishnanand instituted the second suit bearing No. 101 of 1968 before Munsif, North, Sultanpur seeking cancellation of the second sale deed dated 22.02.1965. It is in this way that both the suits, which related to the two sale deeds allegedly executed by Sri Krishnanand (but one suit was filed by Sri Krishnanand himself and the other came to be filed after his death by Shambhu Dutt) were tried simultaneously but remained unconsolidated and both the suits came to be decreed by to separate judgment and decree though dated 31.07.1976. 3. The defendants filed two separate civil appeals before the District Judge, Sultanpur and the appeal arising from the judgment and decree passed in Regular Suit No. 153 of 1966 came to be registered as Regular Civil Appeal No. 149 of 1976. While the First Appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated 31.07.1976 arising out of the Regular Suit No. 101 of 1968 came to be registered as Regular Civil Appeal No. 150 of 1976. 4. The Lower Appellate Court by means of judgment and decree dated 31.05.1986 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Sultanpur allowed the two appeals, as a result, the suit which was decreed by the plaintiffs was dismissed by the Lower Appellate Court and thus the plaintiffs (now through the legal heirs) instituted two second appeals. The second appeal arising out of Regular Suit No. 153 of 1966 is the appeal bearing No. 558 of 1986 whereas the second appeal arising out of Regular Suit No. 101 of 1968 is registered as second appeal No. 589 of 1986. 5. Since the facts, the parties and the question of law is similar in both the appeals, accordingly, the Court has heard the two appeals which are being decided by this common judgment. 6. 5. Since the facts, the parties and the question of law is similar in both the appeals, accordingly, the Court has heard the two appeals which are being decided by this common judgment. 6. Both the second appeals were admitted on 07.12.1987 on the questions of law framed at serial No. A and C in the memo of appeal of the respective second appeals and for the sake of convenience the questions of law framed in both the second appeals are being noticed hereinafter:- Questions of law in Second Appeal No. 558 of 1983 (iii) Whether the learned Lower Appellate Court was justified in drawing the adverse inference of the fact that no suit for cancellation of the alleged sale deed dated 22.03.1965 was filed by late Sri Krishnanand when he was alive can be taken into consideration without putting it to late Sri Krishnanand when he was in the witness box? (ii) Whether the defendant-respondents had proved by evidence that late Sri Krishnanand executed this sale deed cautiously and after understanding the sale? Questions of law in Second Appeal No. 559 of 1983 (i) Whether the learned Lower Appellate Court was justified in rejecting the testimony of Rajpal P.W. 2 and DildarP.W. 3 for reasons known to law for rejecting the testimony of the witnesses? (ii) Whether Dildar P.W. 3 who has agricultural fields near the field of Sri Krishnanand was competent to state about the health of late Sri Krishnanand.? 7. The questions of law which have been noticed above will be clearer once the facts giving rise to the instant appeals are noticed by the Court. 8. This Court shall revert to the facts emanating from second appeal no. 559 of 1986 since it relates to Regular Suit No. 153 of 1966 which was prior in time and then the facts shall be taken forward from the second appeal no. 558 of 1986 which emanates from the Regular Suit No. 101 of 1968 which was the subsequent suit in order to have a robust and chronological fact situation. 9. Sri Krishnanand was the recorded owner of the property, the subject matter of the Regular Suit bearing No. 153 of 1966. 558 of 1986 which emanates from the Regular Suit No. 101 of 1968 which was the subsequent suit in order to have a robust and chronological fact situation. 9. Sri Krishnanand was the recorded owner of the property, the subject matter of the Regular Suit bearing No. 153 of 1966. He instituted a suit on 28th July, 1966 seeking cancellation of a sale deed dated 24th November, 1964 relating to the property situate in Mauja Katkathi, Pargana Jagdeeshpur Musafirkhana, District Sultanpur against Sri Shiv Das, Shiv Dulare and Jagannath with the averments that Sri Krishnanand was an aged person, illiterate, unwell and also was hard of hearing with a weak vision. 10. It was alleged in the plaint that due to his illness, coupled with the fact that he was a bachelor, there was none to take care of him and accordingly in the month of November, 1964 while the plaintiff Sri Krishnanand was not even in a position to move, the defendants on the pretext of taking him for his treatment had taken Sri Krishnanand in their confidence and convinced him that apart from getting his treatment done, Sri Krishnanand may execute a power of attorney in favour of the defendants so that they can take care of his properties as well. 11. It was also alleged that the plaintiff became a victim to the sweet talks of the defendants and agreed to execute the power of attorney. The plaintiff Sri Krishnanand was taken to the Tehsil where he had to lie down as he was not well and once the document was prepared, Sri Krishnanand was informed that he has to go up to the office of the Sub Registrar and was required to say 'yes' to whatever the Sub Registrar asks and after making him understand the aforesaid, the defendants got the thumb impressions on the document which was got registered in the office of the Sub Registrar. 12. It is also alleged that after the execution of the said power of attorney, the defendants no. 1 and 2 had taken the plaintiff Sri Krishnanand to Lucknow where he was admitted in a hospital from where he was discharged on 07th December, 1964. 12. It is also alleged that after the execution of the said power of attorney, the defendants no. 1 and 2 had taken the plaintiff Sri Krishnanand to Lucknow where he was admitted in a hospital from where he was discharged on 07th December, 1964. After few years, when the nephews of the plaintiff inquired as to whether the plaintiff had executed any sale deed, it revealed thereafter that the defendants have procured some sale deed from the plaintiff which was a fraudulent document as the plaintiff never intended to execute any sale deed in favour of the defendants and with the aforesaid averments the plaintiff Sri Krishnanand sought a decree of cancellation of the sale deed dated 24.11.1964 which was the subject matter of the Regular Suit No. 153 of 1966. 13. The instant suit came to be contested by the defendants who filed a joint written statement on 31st August, 1966 denying the averments and stated that the plaintiff was not sick nor he was suffering from any such ailment which impaired his mind or decision making faculties. 14. It was also pleaded that the sale deed was a voluntary act of Sri Krishnanand who after understanding the contents had put his thumb impressions and got the deed registered after receiving the sale consideration. It was further indicated in paragaraph 12 of the written statement that the defendants had even moved an application for getting their names mutated wherein it was admitted by Sri Krishnanand before the Revenue Court regarding the execution of the sale deed and as such the entire averments made in the plaint were false only to harass the defendants and are being made at the behest of the brother and the nephews of the plaintiff, accordingly, the suit was liable to be dismissed. 15. The Trial Court had framed the issues and while Sri Krishnanand who had appeared as a witness as P.W. 1 was under cross-examination, he expired in the month of December, 1967. 16. While the aforesaid Regular Suit bearing No. 153 of 1966 remained pending wherein Shambhu Dutt sought his substitution in the aforesaid suit, the same Shambhu Dutt instituted another suit on 31.08.1968 seeking cancellation of the sale deed dated 22.03.1965 executed by Sri Krishnanand in favour of the defendants and this suit came to be registered as Regular Suit No. 101 of 1968. 17. 17. In this suit as well, Shambhu Dutt claiming to be the legal heirs of Sri Krishnanand put the similar grounds that Sri Krishnanand was an old aged person suffering from illness who was hard of hearing and with a weak vision and the defendants taking advantage of his ill health had surreptitiously tried to get a power of attorney executed and in the garb thereof got the sale deed executed on 22.03.1965 and as such this sale deed too was fraudulent and not the voluntary act of Sri Krishnanand and has been got executed, accordingly, the second suit for cancellation bearing No. 101 of 1968 came to be filed. 18. It is from this point onwards that both the suits were simultaneously tried and the Trial Court by means of judgment and decree dated 31.07.1976 decreed both suits seeking cancellation of the two sale deeds. The defendants being aggrieved preferred two separate appeals and as noticed above both the two appeals were heard and decided by the 1st Additional District Judge, Sultanpur by means of judgment and decree dated 31.05.1986 allowing the appeals and dismissing the suit for cancellation of sale deeds. 19. It is in the aforesaid factual backdrop that the plaintiffs have approached this Court seeking setting aside of the judgment and decree passed by the Lower Appellate Court and restoring the decree of the Trial Court. 20. Sri R.K. Singh Raj, learned counsel holding brief of Sri Birashwar Nath, learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously urged that the issue of fact and law is common in both the appeals, inasmuch as, the two sale deeds, the subject matter of two suits are said to have been executed by Sri Krishnanand in favour of the defendants. 21. It is urged that Sri Krishnanand was an 80 year old man, bachelor and having no one to take care of. He was very ill and taking advantage of his illness and advance age, the defendants-respondents got the alleged sale deeds executed in their favour. 22. It is primarily urged that since the plaintiff was an old illiterate person, accordingly, he was entitled to the benefit as available to a Pardanasheen lady and in effect the burden of proving the sale deed would lie on the defendant. 22. It is primarily urged that since the plaintiff was an old illiterate person, accordingly, he was entitled to the benefit as available to a Pardanasheen lady and in effect the burden of proving the sale deed would lie on the defendant. Since the defendant could not prove the two sale deeds and there were various discrepancies regarding the testimony of the defendants-witnesses in respect of the payment of consideration, accordingly, it gives credence to the fact that the sale deed alleged by the respondents was a fraudulent document and the same was noticed and accordingly held by the Trial Court. 23. It is urged that the Lower Appellate Court has completely misdirected itself and had ignored the aforesaid facts and dismissed the suit. It is submitted that in case if the defendants had another sale deed dated 22.03.1965 in their favour while contesting the first suit bearing No. 153 of 1966 and filing the written statement why it was not disclosed by the defendants. This is a strong circumstance which indicates that the sale deeds were fraudulent and the defendants did not want the plaintiff Sri Krishnanand to know about it. 24. It is also submitted that from the perusal of the statement made by the defendants, it would indicate that there are various discrepancies regarding the payment of consideration which also give credence to the fact that the sale deeds were never actually executed by Sri Krishnanand and the defendants by resorting to fraud have got the sale deeds executed in their favour. 25. It is in the aforesaid backdrop, it is urged that the testimony of P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 who were known to the deceased Sri Krishnanand and used to visit him and were also aware of his ill health yet their testimonies have been discarded without any valid reason which is a clear error committed by the Lower Appellate Court. 26. 26. It is further urged that the Lower Appellate Court also committed an error in drawing an adverse inference against Sri Krishnanand for not assailing the second sale deed dated 22.03.1965 despite the fact that the same was not even disclosed by the defendants in the written statement in the first suit bearing No. 153 of 1966 and also for the reason that Sri Krishnanand had appeared in the witness box yet the said question was not put to him and in the aforesaid circumstances such an adverse inferences was absolutely uncalled for. 27. The learned counsel for the appellant further states that it was incumbent upon the respondents to have proved the execution of the sale deeds also indicating that it was executed by Sri Krishnanand in his sound disposing state of mind which have not been done, consequently, the findings recorded by the Lower Appellate Court are perverse, hence, they are liable to be corrected in exercise of powers under Section 100 C.P.C. In view of the aforesaid, both the appeals deserved to be allowed and the judgment passed by the Lower Appellate Court deserves to be set aside restoring the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. 28. The learned counsel for the appellant in support of his submissions has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Kewal Krishna v. Rajesh Kumar and Others 2021 SCC Online SC 1097 to buttress his submissions that where the sale deeds were a sham document it was incumbent upon the defendants to have proved the execution of the sale deed including the passing of the consideration and since the aforesaid aspect was not duly corroborated or proved by the evidence on record, such findings are perverse and liable to be set aside. 29. The learned counsel for the appellants has also relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin and Another; 2012 (30) LCD 1635 to support his contentions that where the findings of the court below are vitiated for non-consideration of relevant evidence or by showing an erroneous approach, such findings are perverse and are liable to be set aside. 30. 30. The learned counsel for the appellant has also placed reliance on another decision of the Apex Court in Yadarao Dajiba Shrawane; 2002 (20) LCD 1118 to submit that in case if the judgment of the final court of fact is based on misinterpretation of document evidence or on consideration of inadmissible evidence or ignoring the material evidence then the High Court is competent to interfere in the second appeal. 31. The learned counsel for the appellant has also referred to the decision of a coordinate Bench of this Court in Chhangura v. Mata Prasad and Others 2008 (26) LCD 678 to submit that the benefit as applicable to a pardanasheen lady relating to transactions are applicable to an illiterate man or woman. 32. Lastly, he has relied upon a decision of coordinate Bench of this Court in Smt. Kamla Devi v. Ram Asrey 2015 (33) LCD 1835 to submit that where a person is in fiduciary relationship with another and is in a position to dominate the will then the burden of proving the absence of fraud or misrepresentation or undue influence is on the person who is in a dominating position. 33. It has been urged in light of the aforesaid decision that since Sri Krishnanand was old and ailing and the defendants had won over the confidence of Sri Krishnanand, accordingly, the burden of proving that the sale deed was a genuine document was on the defendant which they have failed to prove, coupled with the fact that the rule of Pardanasheen lady is also applicable in the instant case which has been ignored by the Lower Appellate Court. 34. Dr. L.P. Mishra, learned counsel along with Sri Deepanshu Das, learned counsel for the respondents has primarily urged that in a civil proceedings, it is well settled that the evidence is led on the basis of pleadings and the issues framed. Any variance between the pleadings and the proof is to be ignored. It is also urged that where a plea of fraud is taken then even in civil proceedings the averments of fraud, the way it has been pleaded, must be sufficiently proved beyond reasonable doubt as would be applicable in a criminal trial. 35. Any variance between the pleadings and the proof is to be ignored. It is also urged that where a plea of fraud is taken then even in civil proceedings the averments of fraud, the way it has been pleaded, must be sufficiently proved beyond reasonable doubt as would be applicable in a criminal trial. 35. It is from this point, the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that if the pleadings are perused, it would indicate that Sri Krishnanand while instituting the first suit in his life time has made vague averments regarding his illness, however, in the pleadings, he admitted that he had agreed to execute a power of attorney in favour of the defendants. It is also stated in the plaint that Sri Krishnanand was made to understand the full import and thereafter the sale deed was executed after paying the sale consideration. Merely because the sale consideration was not paid before the office of the Sub Registrar would not have any adverse impact on the validity of the sale deed. It is further submitted that even in revenue proceedings, the plaintiff had agreed and accepted the execution of the sale deed and it is in view thereof that the names of the defendants was duly mutated. 36. It is further submitted that it is primarily the plaintiff who has to prove his averments and from the perusal of the averments made in the plaint and the statement given by Sri Krishnanand in the witness box would indicate that his case was at complete divergence from the pleadings and full of contradictions. 37. It is further submitted that Sri Krishnanand did not institute the suit in respect of the second sale deed in his lifetime, inasmuch as, Sri Krishnanand expired in December, 1967 and the second suit came to be filed on 31.08.1968 despite the fact that in the cross-examination of the plaintiff-witnesses, it was admitted by them that they were aware of the second sale deed dated 22.03.1965 but did not raise any challenge till after eight months from the death of Sri Krishnanand and beyond a period of three years from the date of execution of the said sale deed. 38. 38. The learned counsel for the respondents further has drawn the attention of the Court that mere discrepancies or slight contradictions regarding payment of consideration does not invalidate the sale deed especially when this was not the ground upon which the sale deed was sought to be cancelled. 39. It is urged that the primary ground of seeking cancellation of the two sale deeds was the sickness, illness and old age of Sri Krishnanand who is alleged that he was not in a position to understand his own acts. Thus, it is urged that in this regard, there was no material evidence brought on record to establish the nature of illness, the length of illness, the treatment and how it affected the mental faculties of Sri Krishnanand and that he was not able to understand the import of his acts and merely because he was 80 years of age would not necessarily mean that the sale deed executed by him was an outcome of fraud. 40. It is thus submitted that the Lower Appellate Court has considered the matter including the evidence in the correct perspective and has recorded findings of fact which are not liable to be disturbed in exercise of powers under Section 100 C.P.C. and consequently the appeals deserve to be dismissed. 41. The learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India v. M/s Chaturbhai M. Patel and Company; AIR 1976 SC 712 to submit that the averments of fraud are required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt whether made in civil or criminal proceedings. To the aforesaid effect, the learned counsel for the respondents has also relied upon a decision of this Court in Ram Kalp Yadav and others v. State of U.P. and others 2008 (26) LCD 1099. 42. The learned counsel for the respondents has also relied upon the decision of Delhi High Court in Tech Plus Media Pvt. Ltd. v. Jyotijanda and others; 2015 (1) R.AJ. 723 to submit that evidence cannot be lead beyond the pleadings. 43. The Reliance has also been placed on a decision of the Apex Court in Rangammal v. Kuppuswami and another ; 2011 (12) SCC 220 to submit that the plaintiff has to succeed on his own strength and not on the weakness of the defendant. 44. 723 to submit that evidence cannot be lead beyond the pleadings. 43. The Reliance has also been placed on a decision of the Apex Court in Rangammal v. Kuppuswami and another ; 2011 (12) SCC 220 to submit that the plaintiff has to succeed on his own strength and not on the weakness of the defendant. 44. The reliance has also been placed on a decision of Himachal Pradesh High Court in Amarchand v. Madan Lal; 2019 Latest LHJ (H.P.) 1014 to submit that the sale deed is not rendered void in case if the consideration was paid to the defendant at his residence and prior to the date of its registration. 45. In light of the aforesaid, it is submitted that both the appeals deserve to be dismissed. 46. The Court has considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record including the precedents cited by them. 47. At the outset, it may be noticed that in so far as the Authorities which have been cited by the learned counsel for the respective parties are concerned, it is no doubt true that the propositions which have been laid therein are not in dispute, however, whether the aforesaid propositions are applicable is the moot question which is to be considered. 48. From the facts noticed and from the perusal of the impugned judgments, it is no doubt true that Sri Krishnanand was an old person. While he entered into the witness box, he admitted his age to be 80 plus but what is surprising that in the plaint of Regular Suit No. 153 of 1996, he has clearly stated that he remained sick frequently and that he was hard of hearing and had a weak vision. It is also pleaded that the defendants on the pretext of getting the plaintiff treated had won over the confidence of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was informed by the defendants that he would be taken for his treatment and will be taken care of and that the plaintiff was also required to execute a power of attorney so that his properties can also be well taken care of. 49. The plaintiff was informed by the defendants that he would be taken for his treatment and will be taken care of and that the plaintiff was also required to execute a power of attorney so that his properties can also be well taken care of. 49. He further stated in the plaint that once the document was prepared and read out and it was expressed that the plaintiff was required to put his thumb impressions on a document which was a power of attorney and that the plaintiff was required to appear before the Sub Registrar and further that the plaintiff would say 'yes' to what was asked by the Sub Registrar. 50. It is also the specific case that after execution of the power of attorney, the plaintiff was taken to Lucknow where he was admitted in a hospital from where he was discharged on 07th December, 1964. It is only after a few years that he received information from his nephews regarding a rumour of having executed a sale deed in favour of the defendants and it is thereafter that the suit for cancellation came to be filed. 51. At this stage, it will be definitely relevant to state that a person who is old, aged, illiterate and a rustic person is also entitled to the benefit as available to Pardanasheen lady but at the same time it requires to be pleaded and proved that whether the person concerned was entitled to such protection or not. Though, it has been broadly pleaded that the plaintiff used to remain sick and unwell was hard of hearing and weak eyesight and the defendants had taken him in confidence for executing the power of attorney. The aforesaid pleadings, if construed, indicate that the plaintiff had agreed to execute the power of attorney. He, thus, understood the import of the power of attorney and the process involved therein. 52. Now, whether in the aforesaid circumstances, the defendants in the garb of getting a power of attorney got a sale deed executed is a moot question which requires consideration. In this regard, the ground taken by the plaintiff is sheer age, illness, failing eyesight and being hard of hearing. If these facts are taken together, it would indicate that these ailments do not ipso-facto impair the mental faculties of a person. 53. In this regard, the ground taken by the plaintiff is sheer age, illness, failing eyesight and being hard of hearing. If these facts are taken together, it would indicate that these ailments do not ipso-facto impair the mental faculties of a person. 53. In order for the plaintiff to be extended the benefit as available to a Pardanasheen lady, at least the basic ingredients of entitlement must be proved. Mere being a villager or being of an old age does not automatically extend such benefit. Mere illiteracy alone is not sufficient. What is to be seen and proved is that the person who belongs to a village and is of such circumstances that he is not worldly wise and because of his illiteracy, he had no means of understanding the true import of his actions and dealing with outside world. 54. This aspect has not been considered by the Trial Court who has merely extended the benefit of Pardanasheen lady to the plaintiff. Though, the plaintiff entered into the witness box and stated that he is now well but at the time of execution of the first sale deed on 24.11.1964, he was very sick and it appeared that he would expire in a day or two. Throughout, in his examination in chief, he stated that he was completely not in his senses while he was taken to the office of the Sub Registrar, during preparation of the document, during putting his thumb impressions and in the registration process. 55. Apparently, this statement given in the examination in chief is quite contrary to the pleadings made in the plaint by the plaintiff himself. Neither in the plaint nor in the examination in chief, it has been indicated that what was the ailment with which the plaintiff suffered. If he was that very ill that it felt that he would expire in a day or two yet there is nothing on record to indicate that during this period where he was treated, who took care and how he became well and when he regained his proper health so that he could institute the suit himself and also appeared in the witness box. Though, it is vaguely stated that the plaintiff was unwell for the last 8 to 10 years but again there is not a single document to indicate the nature of the ailment and any document regarding the treatment or any evidence in this regard. 56. Another aspect that requires consideration is the fact that after the execution of the first sale deed and institution of the suit, the defendants while filing the written statement in paragraph 12 clearly pleaded that the defendants had agreed and admitted in the revenue proceedings regarding execution of the first sale deed dated 24.11.1964 and it is on the aforesaid basis that the plaintiff had no objection in case if the mutation was made in favour of the defendants. The name of the defendants also got mutated. There is no explanation from the side of the plaintiffs as under what circumstances, the said admission was made by the plaintiff in the revenue proceedings. Merely to make an averment that the plaintiff was not aware is not sufficient, inasmuch as, after the mutation there was never any application given to the effect that the said application moved before the Revenue Court was not under the Authority of the plaintiff Sri Krishnanand and it did not bear his thumb impressions. 57. In his cross-examination, the plaintiff could not give any details regarding his admission in the hospital where he is alleged to have been admitted and discharged on 07th December, 1964. Though, the entire cross-examination of the plaintiff could not be completed and he had expired in the meantime but the fact remains that whatever cross-examination was made and the averments made in the examination-in-chief, they are in variance with the statements given in the plaint. 58. The P.W. 2 Sri Rajpal stated that he had seen Sri Krishnanand and that he was hard of hearing with week eyesight. He merely stated that he used to fall unconscious because of his ailment and that he was unable to even walk. However, in his cross-examination, he stated that Sri Krishnanand was about 85 years of age but even in his ailment, he used to come to look after his fields and that he used to look after his fields till the time he died. However, in his cross-examination, he stated that Sri Krishnanand was about 85 years of age but even in his ailment, he used to come to look after his fields and that he used to look after his fields till the time he died. He also did not throw much light on the nature and the length of his illness except vague assertions relating to illness which any person with old age would have. He also could not indicate that whether Sri Krishnanand was hard of hearing from one ear or both ears or how he used to fall unconscious. He gave contradictory statements that he had seen Sri Krishnanand getting unconscious in his fields but in the same breath, he stated that it could be for the reason that Sri Krishnanand used to get tired and used to lie in the fields and thereafter used to speak slowly. 59. Similarly, the evidence of P.W. 3 states that since his agricultural fields are near the fields of Sri Krishnanand, therefore, he knew him and he had seen Sri Krishnanand coming to his fields to look after, however, he could not give any worthwhile evidence for the reason that he did not even know when Sri Krishnananda died and he had not even gone to visit the household at the time of his death. He was not even aware of any of the relatives of Sri Krishnanand and was also not aware that Sri Krishnananand was hard of hearing. He merely stated that he had become weak on account of illness but was not aware of the nature of the illness except that off and on Sri Krishnanand did contract cold cough and fever. He was not even aware where the treatment of Sri Krishnanand was done. 60. Noticing the texture of the evidence led by the plaintiff-witnesses, it would indicate that mere foundation was laid but nothing could be brought on record to establish with clarity regarding the ailment of Sri Krishnanand to that extent that it could affect his mental faculties and he was unable to understand the import of his acts. 61. It is in the aforesaid backdrop, this Court finds that the Lower Appellate Court which is the final court of fact after perusing the evidence has taken a view which is reasonable. 61. It is in the aforesaid backdrop, this Court finds that the Lower Appellate Court which is the final court of fact after perusing the evidence has taken a view which is reasonable. Merely, because another view is possible, this Court is not inclined to take a different view as that would lead the Court to re-appraise the evidence which this Court is loath to do in exercise of powers under Section 100 C.P.C. unless perversity is pointed out to the extent that the findings is based on inadmissible evidence or the finding which has been arrived at is such that no prudent person could arrive at such a finding. The aforesaid ingredients are missing and hence this Court is not inclined to interfere. 62. As already noticed above, merely raising a plea of extending the benefit of Pardanasheen lady will not ipso facto come to the aid of the plaintiff unless the basic ingredients are proved. As already discussed above, the plaintiffs failed to establish the basic pleading regarding illness, its extent, nature and length and even the plaintiff who had initially entered into the witness box did not lead any evidence in this regard. 63. Now, in the aforesaid backdrop, the only contention of learned counsel for the appellant which remains is that the defendants did not prove the payment of sale consideration. From the evidence led by the defendant-witnesses, there may be certain discrepancies regarding the payment of consideration but nevertheless it is not of that texture and tenor which may render the evidence completely inadmissible or unbelievable. Minor contradictions are found to occur with passage of time and that in itself does not render the evidence inadmissible or liable to be discarded. 64. What the learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant could not explain that the plaintiff did not challenge the second sale deed and it is only after the death of Sri Krishnanand that the second sale deed was challenged and despite the plaintiff of the second suit namely Sri Shambhu Dutt claiming himself to be the legal heir of Sri Krishnanand yet he could not show his presence during the lifetime of Sri Krishnanand in his household and how he took care of him while Sri Krishnanand was sick as alleged for the last 8 to 10 years. 65. 65. As per the family tree which has been noticed by the Trial Court, Sri Krishnanand had three other brothers including Sri Shambhu Dutt, why the other brothers and their children were not impleaded in the second suit as Sri Krishnanand had expired and his estate including the right of representation would devolve on all his legal heirs which included his two brothers Kalpnath and Gajadhar. Though, Kalpnath was impleaded as defendant no. 5 but there were others also who have not been impleaded. 66. The Trial Court has decreed the suit primarily treating the plaintiff Sri Krishnanand to be of old age and suffering from ailments and that he could not understand the gravity of his own acts and also that the sale consideration was not sufficiently proved. This as noticed above was primarily first the burden of the plaintiff to establish regarding his eligibility to be extended such benefit as available to a Pardanasheen lady which has not been done, consequently, the approach of the Trial Court was not appropriate and this aspect has been taken note of by the Lower Appellate Court who has allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. 67. The learned counsel for the appellants could not dispute that where issues of fraud is pleaded then it would be the duty of the plaintiff to establish the same beyond reasonable certainty and this has also been noticed by the Lower Appellate Court and in light of the aforesaid in absence of any cogent evidence to the aforesaid effect merely on a casual reference, the findings could not have been recorded. 68. This Court is of the clear view that the findings recorded by the Lower Appellate Court are appropriate, based on evidence and with a proper approach which does not require any interference from this Court. 69. In view of the aforesaid, the Court does not find that there is merit in the appeals which are accordingly dismissed. The judgment and decree dated 31.05.1986 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 150 of 1976 as well as judgment and decree dated 31.05.1986 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 149 of 1976 are affirmed. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. The records of the court below shall be remitted forthwith.