ATUL KRISHNA MONGAL Vs. ALOKELATA MONDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment and decree dated 15. 02. 1988 passed by learned Assistant district Judge, 2nd Court, Midnapore in T. S. No. 10 of 1983 gave rise to two appeals, being T. A No. 157 of 988 and T. A. No. 173 of 1988.

(2.) BEING aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 20th April, 1989 passed by the learned 6th Court of Additional District Judge, Midnapore, the instant two appeals were filed The factual backdrop of the present cases is as follows :-Plaintiffs claimed that the suit land was purchased by them on 25th june, 1970. Apart from excavating a doba and taking steps for'improvement of such land, they constructed one storied pucca building on Plot No. 408. They possessed the same till 26th January, 1983. They inducted two tenants in such dwelling house. Debasis Mondal, son of the plaintiffs, got married to the defendant on 29th June, 1981 and leaving aside her occasional temporary stay outside, she started living in the house of the plaintiffs at Village- Jalkhanbarh. Discovering that she was older than her husband by six years, she became extremely unhappy - not only with her husband but with the members of his family as well. She was a teacher and her husband, though a law graduate, was unemployed at the relevant time. She started demanding more and more properties of her in-laws for herself, rather out of vengeance. On 1st October, 1982, being accompanied by her own family members, she compelled her husband, Debasis Mondal and his father to put his signature on a document wherein they agreed to return an amount of Rs 20,000/-, which they allegedly took as dowry. This was followed by demand for payment of the said amount on 8th October, 1982. On 9th October, 1982, plaintiffs being accompanied by their son, Debasis Mondal and two grand daughters left the place leaving one room, one kitchen and one privy-cum-bath open for the use of the defendant. Complaint was lodged before various authorities over such illegal action of the defendant and her men. Defendant thereafter removed the padlock from the two rooms left by the plaintiffs and put on her own lock. On 23rd "january, 1983, plaintiffs were assaulted by members of the defendant Plaintiffs and their daughter were kept wrongfully confined in a room.

(3.) ON 24th January, 1983, some persons including one Nandadufal jana came to the plaintiffs and produced one blank paper with revenue stamp affixed and three blank stamp papers. Plaintiffs were then asked to put their signatures on the same. On 25th January, 1983 they forced to sign three written deeds in presence of the Sub-Registrar, who accompanied the defendant and her people. Plaintiff were rescued thereafter and subsequently came to know that one of those deeds was the deed of gift dated 1st January, 1983 and the other two purported to be deeds of sale dated 25th January, 1983. Plaintiffs thereafter filed the suit praying for declaration that the said deeds are void, inoperative and not binding on them. They prayed for cancellation of the same as well as for other reliefs.