MAHARANI Vs. KRISHNA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed by the appellants / plaintiffs under Section 96 of the CPC being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 3rd February 1998 passed by the District Judge, Sagar in C. O. Suit No. 5-A/97, dismissing their suit for declaration and perpetual injunction.

(2.) HEREINAFTER for brevity the principal plaintiff late Smt. Maharani is being said to be the "principal-plaintiff" while the other parties are being said to be the appellants and the respondents respectively.

(3.) THE facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that the principal plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the respondents for declaration and perpetual injunction contending that she being illiterate widow of 90 years is suffering from deafness with weak eyesight. She has three sons namely Harish Chandra, Gotiram (the appellants) and Krishna Kumar, ( the respondent no. 1) and one daughter the respondent no. 7. All the sons are residing separately. As per further averments of the plaint she is holding the agricultural land as Bhumiswami described in para 3-A, B and C (1) and C (2)in the plaint at village Mangela Jamanapurparasia and village Sagoni respectively. On account of her old age she was managing the aforesaid land of Jamanapurparasia through her son Gotiram while the land of Mangela through other son Harish Chandra. On dated 14. 11. 1991 she was at the residence of Gotiram while Gotiram had gone to village Rahali. In the mid night of the aforesaid date her son Krishna Kumar " the respondent no. 1 accompanied with his brother in law Gopal Prasad and sons Devendra Kumar, surendra, the respondent no. 3 and 4 came there and told her that they have brought the bank official for taking her thumb impression on some papers to withdraw the deposited sum of his father the husband of the principle-plaintiff as he is in need of the money to marry his daughter and they took her to the residence of the respondent no. 1 where some persons were already present. In their presence without explaining anything her thumb impression were taken on some papers. She put the same under the aforesaid assurances for withdrawing the money of her husband from the bank. Thereafter, the respondent no. 1 again dropped her at the residence of the appellant no. 2.