SHRIMATI Vs. SUDHAKAR R BHATKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 15-12-1980 the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Rajapur dismissed the plaintiffs suit for declaration that the gift deed dated 15-12-1968 was not binding on her and other incidental reliefs. The District-Judge, Ratnagiri affirmed the said judgment and decree on 18-2-1986. This second appeal filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the aforesaid concurrent judgment and decree.

(2.) ONE Motiram Mugadum was originally owner of the suit properties comprising of survey Nos. 158/9, 164/3, 48/6, 48/9, 44/8 and 31/4 situate at village Tulsawade and house property being Grampanchayat No. 13 situate at village Tulsawade. Motiram Magadum died and after his death Shrimati Motiram Sakharam Magadum (original plaintiff) became the owner and was in possession and enjoyment of the aforesaid properties. The part of the house property was let out by original plaintiff to village panchayat. Tulsawade for rent of Rs. 60/- per year somewhere in the year 1967. Shri Sudhakar Raghunath Bhatkar (original defendant) was Secretary and Gram Sevak of village Panchayat. Tulsawade and he was aiso talathi of the said village. The original defendant was residing in the premises owned by the original plaintiff and taken on rent by the village Panchayat from her. The original plaintiff and original defendant are not related but they were well acquinted since the original defendant was residing in the premises owned by the original plaintiff. The gift deed dated 15-12-1966 is the bone of contention in the present litigation and according to the plaintiff the original defendant took original plaintiff in confidence and took her to taluka place Rajapur on the pretext that bhade chitti was to be executed but in garb thereof as later on she came to know that the original defendant got the gift deed executed from her relating to entire property held by her. The original plaintiff, according to her, came to know in the month of July 1976 that original defendant had mortgaged the property to Ratnagiri District Land Development Bank. On 8-3-1977 the original plaintiff accordingly filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division. Rajapur against the original defendant and the other defendants namely, Maharashtra State Co-operative Land Development Bank with whom the properties were mortgaged praying therein that the gift deed dated 15-12-1966 allegedly executed in favour of defendant No. 1 be treated as cancelled and it be declared that defendant No. 1 has got no right in the said properties pursuant to the said gift deed. The original plaintiff also sought the relief that it be declared that the original defendant No. 1 had no right to mortgage the property with the Maharashtra State Co-operative Land Development Bank and the said property was not liable for auction for re-payment of loan in favour of original defendant No. 1. The original defendant No. 1 filed written statement and denied the averments made in theplaint. According to original defendant No. 1 he looked after the original plaintiff as his mother for about 12 years and out of love and affection for the original defendant No. 1, she gifted her property at her will and volition by the gift deed dated 15-12-1966 which was duly registered. He set up the defence that he was put in possession of the suit property by the original plaintiff on the date of execution of the gift deed and that he has made improvements in the suit house from his own income and loan. The original defendant No. I denied that the gift deed was obtained by practising fraud or exerting undue influence. The trial Court framed issues and thereafter the plaintiff examined herself and one witness Shri Sitaram Panchal. Though the original defendant No. 1 did not examine herself but examined two witnesses on his behalf namely, Shri Sitaram Narayan Chavan and Shri Kashiram Shivram Tanawadi. The gift deed dated 15-12-1966 has been exhibited as Exhibit 56.

(3.) THE trial Court after recording the evidence and hearing the learned Counsel for the parties held that the original plaintiff has failed to prove that defendant No. 1 got executed the registered gift deed in his favour by fraud and also that she was not entitled to the declaration sought by her. Thus, me trial Court dismissed the suit which has been affirmed in appeal as observed above.