GIRISH CHANDRA KAR Vs. KARTICK CHANDRA BANERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal at the instance of the plaintiffs is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned judge, Thirteenth Bench, City Civil court, Calcutta, in Title Suit No. 1491 of 1974.

(2.) THE plaintiffs-appellants are grandsons of one Haridasi Dassi, who was the owner of premises no. 124-C, Bata krishna Pal Avenue, Calcutta, and several other properties. She executed a deed of trust on 27-1-1943 in respect of her properties, including premises no. 124-C, Batakrishna Pal Avenue, Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as the suit-premises for the sake of convenience) for the performance of seva puja of their family deity, Sri Sri Iswar Balgopal jew, which was established and consecrated on 6-2-1941 in the fourth storey of her premises no, 181 A, Balaram De street, Calcutta, and for other purposes. One of the terms of the deed of trust was that the trustee shall let out to tenants all the immovable properties, except such portion which was excluded from being let out by that deed. On 8-2-1960, a deed of lease was executed by Ramchandra Kar as her constituted attorney in respect of the suit-premises, whereby the defendant respondent he came a tenant of the suit-premises for a term of 21 years and 22 days and up to the end of February, 1981 at the rent of its. 125\- per month. Haridasi died on 14-3-1974. After her death, a notice was sent by the appellants to the defendant through an Advocate for payment of rent in respect of the suit-premises for the month of December, 1973 and for the months from February to May, 1974 at the rate of Rs. 125/- per month. In a reply dated 12-8-1974 being sent by the defendant to that Advocate's notice, it was stated that Haridasi had executed another deed of lease in respect of the suit-premises on 8-2-1971. The plaintiff appellants filed the title suit in the City civil Court, challenging this latter deed of lease dated 8-2-1971.

(3.) THE case of the plaintiffs-appellants was that on account of infirmity due to old age, Haridasi became blind She was an absolutely illiterate lady and could, not follow the implications about execution of the second deed of lease. It was alleged that the second, deed of lease was obtained by fraud, undue influence, misrepresentation and coercion, as the terms of the second deed were not favourable to Haridasi, as compared with the terms of the first deed of lease. By filing the suit, the plaintiffs prayed for a. declaration that the deed of lease dated 8-2-1971 was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation ,'undue influence and. . . as such, was not binding upon the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs prayed for a declaration that the second deed of lease was. void and was of no effect on the plaintiffs. They also prayed for passing of a decree for cancellation of the second deed of lease. There was a further prayer in the plaint for recovery of khas possession of the suit-premises.