CHITTARANJAN CHATTERJEE Vs. SADHAN BANERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT /Plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that the registered deed of Family Settlement being deed No.2178 dated 09.09.1987 executed by his wife Kamalarani Devi in favour of the defendants is void, collusive, fraudulent and procured by false impersonation and so is not binding upon the plaintiff.

(2.) PLAINTIFF 's case is that the suit property was purchased by his wife prior to their marriage. After marriage they began to reside in the suit property, a portion of which was occupied by a tenant. His wife had been suffering from high blood pressure, high blood sugar and neurological problem and she was under medical treatment. Since no issue was born out of their wedlock, they adopted a female child named Shibani Das and they brought her up as their own daughter. The condition of Kamalarani deteriorated day by day and she used to stay in Kolkata under the care of Shibani. Plaintiff used to come at weekend. Shibani used to take help of the defendants who are the sons of the elder sister of his wife, in the event of crisis. Ultimately plaintiff managed his posting at Kolkata and took his wife and Shibani to his paternal house at Dumdum. From the year 1982 Kamalarani lost the senses of distinguishing right or wrong. She died on 12.07.1999.

(3.) BEING the sole legal heir of his deceased wife Kamalarani Devi, the plaintiff began to collect rent from the tenants in respect of the suit property by issuing rent receipts. On 08.08.2005 he received Advocate 's letter along with some annexures and came to learn that his tenant Aravinda Pal had filed a suit against him for protection of his tenancy right. The appellant then asked his said tenant who disclosed that one of the respondents Sekhar Banerjee had threatened him to oust from the suit property and to construct a multi -storied building thereon. The appellant then rushed to the house of the respondents. Being asked one of the respondents disclosed that they had acquired right, title and interest in the suit property by virtue of the impugned deed dated 09.09.1987 and that they would not allow him entry into the suit property. The appellant thereafter, took out the certified copy of the impugned deed No.2178 dated 09.08.1987 and filed the suit alleging that his wife was not physically or mentally fit, that she had no reason to execute such deed nor she could understand the contents or sign it and the defendants have procured the deed by false impersonation.