SUMIT KR. DAS Vs. NAMITA DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the original defendant to challenge a judgment and decree dated 03.05.2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), West Tripura, Agartala as confirmed by the learned Additional District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala by a judgment dated 16.06.2016.

(2.) Brief facts may be noted at the outset: The respondent Smt. Namita Das is the mother of the appellant Sumit Kr. Das. She had filed Title Suit No.64 of 2011 before the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) against the appellant for a declaration that she was the owner of the suit land and that the instrument of gift was void and be cancelled. These prayers were based on her averments in the plaint that after the death of her husband the plaintiff and the defendant lived together. Being a younger son he used to take care of the plaintiff. Subsequently, the plaintiff and the defendant shifted to a rented premise in Agartala. The plaintiff was the owner of land admeasuring .0720 acres, more particularly described in Schedule-A to the plaint (referred to as suit land) after the death of her husband. After the mother and son shifted to Agartala, the defendant son started constructing a house on the suit land. Upon completion of the house both of them shifted there. She thereafter fell ill and developed high blood pressure and heart disease sometime in the month of July, 2007. Out of love and affection she desired to bequeath 2(two) gandas of land out of the suit land to the defendant by way of a will. The defendant himself brought a deed writer who prepared the document which was signed by her and duly registered on 21.08.2007. However, the document which was prepared was one of a gift and not a will. Thus, the defendant had fraudulently got the said gift deed executed by the plaintiff. She desired to grant only 2(two) gandas of the total land and that too after her death. Instead the defendant fraudulently obtained her signature on a gift deed transferring the entire land to him during her lifetime. The plaintiff was unaware about the same. However, when she received a notice for mutation, she raised an objection on 01.12.2009, thereafter tried to resolve the issues with her son which having failed she was compelled to file the said suit.

(3.) The defendant filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. Allegation of fraudulent execution of gift deed was denied. He contended that after his marriage the relationship with the mother and daughter-in-law was strained and, therefore, the plaintiff had taken recourse to the said litigation. He contended that the gift deed was executed by his mother with full consciousness. She was present before the office of the Sub-Registrar at the time of registration of the document. She herself had appointed the deed writer to prepare the document.