LOTIKA SARKAR Vs. DHOUNDIAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS suit was filed by the plaintiff aged about 86 years with a prayer of cancellation of gift deed dated 28th June, 2007 whereby the property No. L-1/10, hauz Khas Enclave, New Delhi was gifted by the plaintiff to defendant No. 1. A prayer is also made that the defendants be directed to handover the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff and they further be directed to render accounts in respect of her funds and financial dealings.

(2.) IN the ground for cancellation, it was stated by the plaintiff that the plaintiff and her husband had no children and defendant No. 2, husband of defendant No. 1, was a serving officer in Indian Police Service and his son, that is, defendant No. 3 had to pursue his education in Delhi and he wanted defendant No. 3 to reside with the plaintiff and her husband. Since the plaintiff and her husband were at advanced stage of their lives, the plaintiff was persuaded by her husband to agree to this proposal and she agreed. The plaintiff's husband passed away on 10th october, 2005 with the result that the plaintiff came under immense trauma and grief. Taking advantage of this situation the defendants shifted into the house of the plaintiff and took total control of the plaintiff and the suit property. She was made to handover all her documents relating to her financial investments, passport papers, etc. It is alleged that the plaintiff was not permitted to read current news, magazines, etc. and was discouraged from going out door and was kept under surveillance by the defendants. The plaintiff's relatives and friends reduced their visits and she later on learnt that the defendants behaved in an unwelcome manner to her relatives and friends with the result that their visits dropped. In a nutshell, it is stated that the plaintiff's life and affairs were being regulated by the defendants. Her financial affairs and other affairs regarding house came into the hands of the defendants because of old age and grief of the plaintiff. However, it is stated that the defendants were in fiduciary relationship of plaintiff and were in a position to dominate the Will of the plaintiff and in this background, the plaintiff was made to sign certain documents and she was taken to the Registrar office where her photograph was also taken and the plaintiff was not clearly in a position to appreciate the purpose of this exercise and she was not made to understand that the documents she executed was a gift deed whereby she gifted her property at Hauz Khas Enclave worth crores of rupees in favour of defendant no. 1. She was made to understand that she was signing documents to transfer the property in her own name. Based on these averments and certain other averments, it is pleaded that the plaintiff was deprived of her property by way of executing a gift deed in favour of defendant No. 1 deceptively, under undue influence and the plaintiff was rendered homeless at the age of 86 years. It is stated that on 11th January, 2009, one Mrs. Ranjana Bharti, wife of plaintiff's former cook attempted to forcibly enter the suit property and occupy the servants' quarter in purported execution of some decree. Defendant No. 2, who was posted at Patna rushed to New Delhi and an altercation took place between defendant No. 2 and Mrs. Ranjana Bharti over the suit property and this was widely covered by national print and television media. It is then, the plaintiff learnt that L-1/10, Hauz Khas Enclave i. e. her property, was being claimed by defendant No. 1 as her property on the basis of a gift deed. She also intimated police on 7th February, 2009 that she did not wish to be contacted by the defendants and she has been compelled to leave her home. There are various other facts which have been stated by the plaintiff as to what happened thereafter in the media and how a writ petition was filed by the defendants of habeas corpus for production of the plaintiff and this court appointed Mr. Arjun Bhandari as Commissioner. She had also got served a notice on defendants and the defendants refused to recognize the plaintiff as the owner of the property thus, this suit.

(3.) IN the written statement it was stated that no cause of action had arisen in favour of plaintiff and the plaintiff may not even be aware about the exact contents of the suit and its ramifications. Plaintiff was able to appreciate the true and correct facts because of her loss of memory coupled with brain washing, tutoring and undue influence of conspirators.