MODANANTAK PRATAP SINGH Vs. MANWENDRA PRATAP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is at the instance of the plaintiff and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 27. 04. 1989 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, Additional Court, Hooghly in Title Suit No. 60 of 1988 whereby the learned Trial Judge dismissed the suit.

(2.) THE plaintiff/appellant filed the suit for declaration and setting aside the two deeds of gift as described in the schedule C and D of the plaint holding that the same were false, fraudulent, collusive, invalid and done under coercion and undue influence and also praying for restraining the defendant no. 1 from interfering with the plaintiff's possession of the properties described in schedule A and B of the plaint and for other consequential reliefs. According to the plaint case one Ram Pal Singh, since deceased, was the owner of the suit properties. He had many properties at Chandannagar in West Bengal and Protapgarh in Uttar Pradesh. He belonged to Mitakshara School of Hindu Law. He died intestate in 1952 leaving behind the plaintiff as widow, only one son, Uday Raj Singh and two daughters namely Raghupati Debi and Vidyabati Debi. The daughters were married. The defendant no. 1 is the wife of Uday Raj Singh, son of Ram Pal Singh. The son of the plaintiff looked after her and he held a Power of Attorney but subsequently he was involved in debts and then in order to save the schedule A and B properties of the plaint, one Title Suit No. 54 of 1967 was filed by the plaintiff for partition of the suit properties along with other properties. The plaintiff became the absolute owner of the suit properties mentioned in schedule A and B of the plaint by the final decree of the said suit for partition. The plaintiff, her son and defendant no. 1 went to stay for some days at their native village at Narharpur, Protapgarh, Uttar Pradesh and at that place her son became ill and then the son went to her sister's house at Protap Bahadur Park about 8 miles away from their native village, Narharpur and stayed there for sometime. During such temporary absence of the plaintiff's son, the defendant no. 1 in collusion and conspiracy with the defendant nos. 2 and 3 hatched up a plan to grab the property of the plaintiff. The defendant no. 1 proposed the plaintiff to return to Chandannagar for her medical treatment by their house physician, Dr. A. K. Sain, at Chinsurah. They left Protapgarh at dead hours of night by a jeep for Chandannagar as per arrangement of the defendant no. 1. The driver and another unknown person were in the said jeep. On the next evening they reached Chandannagar. Because of jerks and jolting of the vehicle and old age, the plaintiff became ill and she could not move for two to three days. Dr. A. K. Sain was not called for her examination at all. On the other hand, in one afternoon when the plaintiff was in her bed, the defendant no. 1 and an unknown person wanted to take few thumb impressions of the plaintiff on some papers. Beside the defendant no. 1, nobody known to the plaintiff was present. On being asked the defendant no. 1 told her that a Power of Attorney for looking after the properties was being executed. The plaintiff disagreed to put her left thumb impression on such papers. But she was threatened with dire consequences. Ultimately the plaintiff was compelled to put her L. T. Is. on some papers. The contents of those papers were not read over and explained to her. She had no independent advice for taking her L. T. Is. on those papers. Then defendant no. 1 and other persons left the room. Thereafter the plaintiff informed her son to come to Chandannagar. After a few days, she told him everything when he came. The son of the plaintiff made enquiries and came to know that the defendant no. 1 procured two deeds of gift in her favour in respect of the suit properties. The deeds of gift laid down that one Harikesh Bahadur Singh of Aurangabad read over and explained the deed to her but he was not known to her at all. The deeds of gift were not properly executed at all and so they were void. The defendant no. 1 had also executed and registered a deed of lease in favour of the defendant no. 2 for five years in respect of the properties mentioned in schedule B without any premium. The previous lease under the plaintiff had already expired in respect of those properties and the defendant no. 2 was asked to vacate the properties.

(3.) THE defendant no. 1 contested the suit stating, inter alia, that her husband, i. e. , son of the plaintiff was not a person of good moral character. The plaintiff was afraid of her son. So in order to protect the suit properties from the clutches of her son she had gifted the same in favour of her son's wife. The deeds of gift were properly executed. The defendant no. 1 took possession of the same. So the suit should be dismissed.