LAWS(ALL)-2004-4-118

GIRRAJ PRASAD Vs. TRIBENI DEVI

Decided On April 09, 2004
GIRRAJ PRASAD Appellant
V/S
TRIBENI DEVI (DECEASED BY LR) Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendant's second appeal. It arises out of original suit No. 171 of 1974 filed by Smt. Triveni Devi, for declaration and cancellation of a gift deed dated 15-12-1962 executed by her in favour of the present defendant appellant, who is the nephew of her husband.

(2.) The suit was instituted on the allegations that the plaintiff is the exclusive owner and in possession of two houses Nos. 1711 and 1722 situate in Mohalla Anta Para. She has been residing over a portion of the house and the rest is in possession of the tenants. She is an illiterate old and Pardanasheen lady and is not aware about the legal formalities. The defendant-appellant used to visit the plaintiff off and on and served her about 10 years ago when she was ill. The defendant provided medicine etc. After gaining her confidence he one day suggested that to save her property and to exclude the other brothers of the defendant who would be otherwise legal heirs after the death of the plaintiff execute some document so that he alone be exclusive owner of the property to be left by her. She agreed to the suggestion of the defendant and went to District Court. There the defendant got prepared some document and obtained her signature on few papers on the pretext that after her death he would become the exclusive owner of the property and till her death she will continue to be owner of the property. The plaintiff believing the statements made by the defendant put her thumb mark on the document which was got prepared by the defendant blindly. About 15 days prior to the filing of the suit she came to know that the defendant is making negotiations to sell her two houses and she became suspicious thereof and then got the document read over. It then transpired that the defendant has become the owner of the property during her lifetime and as such the defendant played fraud on her. The plaintiff claimed that she is still in possession of the property in question in her own right.

(3.) The suit was contested on number of pleas but the fact that the plaintiff is related to him and she is an illiterate, old and Pardanasheen lady has not been controverted in the written statement. It has been pleaded that the plaintiff after fully understanding the contents of the document voluntarily executed the gift deed. The gift deed was executed as he had been residing with the plaintiff since his childhood and the plaintiff had great love and affection for him. In that circumstance the deed in question was executed. She is in occupation of the house in question not as an owner. On the other hand after execution of the document in question (gift deed) the defendant is in possession of the disputed house as owner and it is defendant who has let out the portion of it to the tenants. Plea of estoppel and acquiescence was also raised.