NEMAI CHANDRA DEY Vs. PRASANTA CHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A second appeal at the stage of admission was dismissed on December 12, 2013 on the ground of non-appearance of the learned Advocate for the appellant. By the present application the appellant sought recalling of the order of dismissal. We proposed to hear both the recalling applications as also the admissibility of the second appeal. Learned Counsel for the parties advanced arguments on such basis. Concurrent findings of the Courts below were assailed in the second appeal. The Trial Court decreed the suit. On appeal the decree was sustained.

(2.) A Pardanashin lady and illiterate filed a suit for cancellation of two deeds of gift executed by her, for declaration, permanent injunction and in the alternative recovery of khas possession. The plaintiff owned few properties. The plaintiff was without any relative except the son of her husband's brother, namely, the Defendant No. 1. The plaintiff depended entirely upon the Defendant No. 1 for the management of her properties. As a Pardanashin lady, she never went out of the house except under exceptional circumstances. It was claimed by the plaintiff that the Defendant No. 1 informed the plaintiff that, the name of the plaintiff was not recorded in the settlement record and that, she was required to file a case. The Defendant No. 1 assured the plaintiff that, he would be making all necessary arrangement for correction of the settlement record in the event the plaintiff executed a power of attorney in his favour. The plaintiff agreed to do so relying on the Defendant No. 1. The Defendant No. 1 along with unknown persons came to the plaintiff and requested her to sign the power of attorney. The plaintiff signed the documents given to her at the instance of the Defendant No. 1. She was informed by the Defendant No. 1 that the sub-registrar would attend the plaintiff and finalize the power of attorney. Accordingly, one gentleman with other persons attended the plaintiff at her house and questioned her whether she signed the document or not. The plaintiff admitted such signature. Such persons took her left thumb impression on the documents. The plaintiff did not know the contents of the documents. The documents were not read over and explained to her. The plaintiff alleged that, the Defendant No. 1 took money to file the so-called case on her behalf. Later that year the sister of the plaintiff and his son visited the plaintiff. The plaintiff informed them of the power of attorney. The Defendant No. 1 was called upon to show the power of attorney. The Defendant No. 1 avoided the matter. Thereafter, the son of the sister of the plaintiff made searches in the registry office when the two deeds of gift came to light. The plaintiff confronted the Defendant No. 1 when the Defendant No. 1 started mistreating the plaintiff and threatened her with dire consequences. The plaintiff was constrained to leave her residence and stay at Santragachi with her sister. The son of the sister obtained certified copies of the two registered deeds from the sub-registry office. In such circumstances the plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants.

(3.) The Defendant No. 1 contested the suit by filing written statement. The Defendant No. 1 claimed that the plaintiff and her husband took the Defendant No. 1 on adoption and that he was the adopted son of the plaintiff. The Defendant No. 1 looked after the plaintiff. The plaintiff was intelligent, educated and after being satisfied with the service of the Defendant No. 1 made the two deeds of gift. The plaintiff voluntarily executed and registered the two gift deeds. The sons of the sister of the plaintiff in order to grab the property took the plaintiff to Santragachi and made her file the suit against the defendant.