RANU BHANDARI Vs. NILIMA DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant Second Appeal was filed against the Judgment and Decree dtd. 20/12/2007 passed by the First Appellate Court being the Learned Additional District Judge, 3rd Court at Alipore in Title Appeal No.273 of 1999 whereby the Judgment and Decree dtd. 13/08/1999 passed by the Learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, 6th Court at Alipore in Title Suit No. 75 of 1995 was reversed and set aside.

(2.) The sum and substance of the plaint case was that the suit property belonged to the original Defendant who is the father of the Appellant/Plaintiff. The suit property was transferred by way of a registered deed of gift dtd. 14/09/1992 by the original Defendant in favour of the Appellant/Plaintiff. Khas possession of the suit property had also been delivered to the Appellant/Plaintiff. After delivery of khas possession, the Appellant/Plaintiff requested the original Defendant, being her father, to vacate the suit premises. At that time, the original Defendant was in possession of the suit property along with his wife and a son and daughter. It was contended in the plaint that the Appellant/Plaintiff made enough financial help to the original Defendant as he had no source of income and was entangled in a criminal prosecution since the wife of his son had met with unnatural death. Subsequently, all were acquitted. The Appellant/Plaintiff had borne all the costs of litigations. Out of gratitude, the original Defendant executed the deed of gift in favour of the Appellant/Plaintiff. As the original Defendant requested for accommodation, six months' time was allowed by the Appellant/Plaintiff to continue possession on the basis of leave and license without payment of any rent or license fee. It was assured that the suit property would be vacated on expiry of the month of September, 1993. In spite of expiry of the stipulated period, the original Defendant did not vacate the suit property. Therefore, the Appellant/Plaintiff was constrained to institute the original suit praying for decree of eviction, mesne profit along with other prayers.

(3.) The original Defendant contested the suit by filing written statement. Apart from challenging the maintainability of the suit and denying all the allegations, it was contended that the suit property was a three storied structure, two of which were tenanted whereas the original Defendant was in occupation of the entire second floor along with his family. The Appellant/Plaintiff was not in possession of the suit premises. It was denied that the suit property had been transferred to the Appellant/Plaintiff by way of gift. Taking advantage of the old age of the original Defendant, the Appellant/Plaintiff forced the original Defendant to execute the deed of gift. It was also alleged that the deed of gift in question was a fraudulent one. The Appellant/Plaintiff got the alleged deed of gift executed by the original Defendant representing the same as a power of attorney. It was further pleaded that the original Defendant cancelled the alleged deed of gift by another registered deed dtd. 01/04/1997. It was denied that the original Defendant was a licensee in the suit premises and was liable to vacate the same. In nutshell, the original Defendant pleaded that the suit should be dismissed.