PATAL BALA DEBI Vs. SANTIMOY MAJUMDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was instituted in the Court below by appellant Sm. Patal Bala Debi for a declaration that a deed of gift alleged to have been executed by her in favour of the defendant respondent on 10th Sravan, 1355 B.S. is fraudulent, illegal and inoperative. The subject-matter of the alleged gift is a pueea residential house in village Kasundia within police station Sibpore and Howrah town.

(2.) The allegation of the plaintiff in brief was that the defendant, who is a distant nephew of plaintiff's deceased husband Harigopal Chatterjee, used to live at Halisahar and work in Dunlop Company. He began to visit the plaintiff at her house at Kasundia for some time prior to the execution of the disputed document and by professing care and affection for the plaintiff, he gradually wormed himself into her confidence and brought her under his influence. The plaintiff had some lands of her husband in village Satberia within the district of 24-Parganas which were looked after by one Jagabandhu Chakraborty, a distant agnate of her husband. The plaintiff did not get her due share of the profits from those lands and this fact being brought to the notice of the defendant, he proposed to look after these properties if a deed of management was executed in his favour by the plaintiff. The plaintiff agreed to this proposal whereupon she was taken to the Registry Office at Howrah and the defendant got a deed of his own choice executed by her on 10th Sravan, 1355 B. S. corresponding to 26-7-1948 which was registered on 9-8-1948. The plaintiff is an illiterate pardanashm woman and the contents of the deed were never made known to her and she did not receive any independent advice in the matter and signed the deed without knowing it to be a deed of gilt. It was further averred by the plaintiff that she came to know about the real nature and purport of the deed when the defendant demanded rent from the tenants of the house on 28-11-1948. The suit was thereafter instituted on 7-12-1948.

(3.) The suit was contested by the defendant. His defence was that the deed of gift represented a genuine and bona fide transaction and the disposition of the property was the outcome of plaintiff's voluntary and independent action uninfluenced by any persuasion on the part of the defendant. It was further alleged by the defendant that the plaintiff is not a pardanashin woman and she executed the deed after having consulted her neighbours and relations and the contents of the deed of gift were read out to her who executed the same after fully apprehending the nature and purport of the deed. It was also alleged by the defendant that simultaneously with the execution of this deed, the defendant executed a bond in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to pay her a monthly allowance at the rate of Rs. 15/- and this bond was accepted by the plaintiff.