KALYANI MITRA Vs. HINDU MILAN MANDIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is plaintiffs appeal whose suit for declaration of her title over the suit house and a further declaration that the gift deed dated 22-12-1978 (Ex. C-4)was void and of no legal consequence has been dismissed by the judgment and decree dated 26-10-1981 passed by Shri M. M. Baury, IV Addl. Judge to the Court of Distt. Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No. 42-A/80.

(2.) THE suit was originally filed by late Smt. Manorama Dutt who was admittedly the owner of the suit property consisting of a house situated in Tikarapara in Bilaspur. It was alleged that she was the absolute owner of the suit house which was also in her possession. That she was an old lady of about 90 years of age and was, therefore, physically and mentally weak and unable to take any decision by herself. She alleged that on 22-12-1978 when she was alone in her house the original defendant Bholanath dutt and few others came in the evening and told that the government officials have come to take her signatures on some papers and thereby obtained her thumb impressions on some papers without telling her what they were. She further alleged that she subsequently learnt she has been made to execute a will in favour of defendant bholanath and gift away her house to respondent Hindu Milan Mandir. She therefore, appeared before the Registrar and filed an affidavit dated 3-1-1979 saying that she had neither executed the Will nor any gift deed. She by this very document cancelled the will. A notification in the local newspaper dated 7-1-1979 and in Yugdharma, Raipur on 13-1-1979 was also published. Since the gift deed could not have been cancelled by her, she filed the present suit for cancellation thereof and declaring her own title over the suit property. The respondents filed their joint written statement and asserted that she had executed the gift deed voluntarily and without any pressure. They, therefore, pleaded that the gift having become final, could not be revoked. They also denied all adverse allegations against them and prayed for dismissal of the suit. The learned trial judge, on consideration of oral and documentary evidence on record held that the gift deed was valid and voluntarily executed. The learned judge also held that respondent no. 1 was a legal person and was consequently in a position to accept the gift. It was also held that the gift deed has not only been executed but also implemented. On these findings the suit was dismissed.

(3.) IT may be noticed that original plaintiff Smt. Manorama died during the pendency of the suit and the present appellant has been substituted in her place as her legal representative by order of the trial court. Defendant Bholanath Dutt died during the pendency of the appeal. On an application filed by the appellant the name of this respondent was deleted from the appeal. That is how the present appeal survives only against original defendants Nos. 1 and 3.