LAWS(TRIP)-2014-9-13

MINATI SEN Vs. RABINDRA SEN

Decided On September 12, 2014
Minati Sen Appellant
V/S
Rabindra Sen Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Section 100 by the plaintiffs under Section 100 of the C.P.C. questioning the legality of the reversal judgment dated 28.08.2007 delivered by the Additional District Judge, Kailashahar, North Tripura in Title Appeal No. 27 of 2006.

(2.) The appellant and the respondent No.3 filed the suit being Title Suit No.27 of 2006 for declaration that the schedule deeds are illegal, effects of fraud and collusion, void and not binding upon the plaintiffs and further that the plaintiffs are entitled to 1/2 share in the properties described under the schedule of the property. By 3(three) registered gift deeds under No.1-617, 1- 618 & 1-619 dated 10.03.1986, described in the second schedule, Rashamoy Sen, the father of the appellant, gifted the entire suit land described in the first schedule to Rabindra Sen, his only son, the respondent No.1. Their allegations in the plaint are that on exercising of undue influence and fraud their three uncles made their father to execute the gift deeds in a clandestine manner. Even their mother namely Malati Sen, respondent No.4, was in the dark and the plaintiffs gathered the knowledge of existence of gift deeds only on 06.04.2005 when their husbands searched and obtained the certified copies of the said gift deeds dated 10.03.1986. It is not in the controversy that the donor, their father, died on 09.08.1986. The appellant have questioned the validity of the deeds on another ground that at the relevant point of time the respondent No.1 was minor and his acceptance of the gift deed is not tenable in law in view of the provisions of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. That apart, the appellant and the respondent No.3 have asserted in the plaint that at the relevant point of time their father was suffering from serious ailments. The allegations of fraud are exclusively directed against the respondent No.2, who is the full blood brother of the donor and two other brothers namely, Bidhan Chandra Sen and Biresh Sen who attested the deeds of gift as the witness.

(3.) The respondent Nos.1 & 2 filed a joint written statement controverting the allegations made in the plaint and stated that on contemplating the uncertainty of his life, the donor had executed the deeds of gift in favour of the respondent No.1 as he was the only male member in his family and was competent to take responsibility of maintenance of his family.