GULAICHI Vs. UMA SHANKER PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. K. Phaujdar, J. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 11-12-1980 passed by the First Additional District Judge, Gorakhpur, in Civil Appeal No. 142 or 1979, whereby the Court below was pleased to dismiss the first appeal of the present appellant. The aforesaid first appeal was filed against the judgment and decree of Munsif, Gorakhpur, in Original Suit No. 102 of 1976 in stituted by the present appellant which was dismissed on 22-3-1979.

(2.) THE said suit was filed by the present appellant against the defendant-respon dents for cancellation of a deed of gift dated 9-5-1968 allegedly executed by the husband of the plaintiff- appellant covering the property as detailed at the foot of the plaint. THE plaintiff had alleged in the plaint that her husband Ram Sahu was the owner of the property in dispute and was in possession thereof. THE plaintiff and her husband and only two daughters. THE husband of the plaintiff had grown old and was under financial constraints to get the daughters married. He requested defendant No. 2 that defendant No. 1 be married with the elder daughter of the plaintiff. THE defendant No. 2 demanded that such marriage would be possible if the plaintiffs husband executed a Will in favour of his daughter for the house in suit. Under compulsion, the plaintiff's husband had signed a deed dated 9-5-1968 and the mar riage was performed. This marriage, however, was not a happy one. THE daughter of the plaintiff was murdered by her husband on 12-11-1970. A report was made. THE deed that was scribed was in fact not a Will but a gift and was fraudulently obtained under undue advantage of the financial constraints of the husband of the plaintiff. THE valuation of the property allegedly gifted was show far less than its actual value. For all these reasons, the plaintiff filed the suit for cancellation of the deed dated 9-5-1968.

(3.) IN the first appeal, the court framed five points for decision. It was held that the deed was not violative of the provisions of the D. P. Act and that the defendant had acquired good title under the gift- deed which was accepted by him and the deed in question was not a will deed but was a gift-deed only. The appellate court, how ever, found that the suit was not barred by limitation but it was barred on the principle of estoppel and acquiescence accordingly, the lower court's judgment and decree were confirmed.