DAYA SHANKAR Vs. BACHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff was the owner of the houses in suit and entitled to recover rent of house No. 1 from defendants Nos. 9 and 10 and for possession over house No. 3.

(2.) The suit was filed on the allegations that the plaintiff's uncle Mahadeo was the exclusive owner of the aforesaid houses, Smt. Bachohi, defendant No. 1 was his widow, Dullar, defendant No. 2 was his daughter, defendant Nos. 3 to 6 were the sons of his another daughter, defendants Nos. 7 to 10 were the sons of Mahadeo's yet another daughter Sudama and defendants Nos. 11 and 12 were the tenants of house No. 1. Since Mahadeo had no son, he used to treat the plaintiff as his son since his childhood and had great affection for him. The plaintiff also used to serve Mahadeo and look after him. In Nov., 1964, he fell 111. Hence, the plaintiff with the consent of defendant No. 1 got him admitted in the Railway hospital on 9-11-1964. It is alleged that the plaintiff had served him during the said illness also and Mahadeo expressed his desire to make a gift of the said houses to the plaintiff. Accordingly he executed a gift deed (Ex. 7) on 17-11-1964 which was duly accepted by the plaintiff. According to the terms of the gift deed the plaintiff was entrusted with the responsibility of maintaining defendants Nos. 1' and 2. Later, however, defendant No. 1 and the other daughters of Mahadeo brought pressure on him and under coercion and undue influence got another gift deed, Ex. A-2, executed in favour of defendants Nos. 1 to 8 on 7-12-1964. Mahadeo died on 2-6-1965. It was averred that by virtue of the first gift deed, Mahadeo was left with no interest in the property and accordingly the later gift deed was illegal and invalid. Apart from this, the subsequent gift deed was also alleged to have been got executed under undue pressure and was, therefore, vitiated and did not confer any right of the first gift deed, (sic) the plaintiff claimed to be entitled to recover rent from the tenants-defendants Nos. 11 and 12.

(3.) The defence, in short, to the suit was that the plaintiff had been living separately from Mahadeo since long and did not serve him at all during his lifetime, that when Mahadeo fell ill in Nov. 1964 he was 80 years old and the plaintiff represented to him that he being a Railway employee could secure better treatment in the Railway Hospital. Therefore, the defendant No. 1 agreed to allow him to be admitted in the Railway Hospital. He returned home on 18-11-1964 and thereafter the plaintiff disclosed that he had got a registered gift deed executed from Mahadeo. When the latter learnt of it, he made enquiries and on finding that a gift deed had been procured from him in those circumstances, he made complaints to the authorities concerned. Thereafter, on legal advice, he executed another gift deed on 7-12-1964 as stated above and got it registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar. He actually cancelled the earlier gift deed by the latter. It was pleaded that the gift deed in favour of the plaintiff was illegal and void as it was not executed by Mahadeo knowingly and out of his free will but was got executed while he was ill in the hospital. At all events, it was never given effect to and hence the plaintiff had no right or interest in the property in dispute.