PRADIP KUMAR DAS Vs. CHANDI CHARAN DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal at the instance of the defendant is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Learned First Appellate Court in Title Appeal No. 57 of 1996 reversing the judgment and decree of the Learned Trial Court in T. S. 546 of 1988. Plaintiffs came up with the case that the father of the plaintiff Rakhal Chandra Das, now deceased, was the owner of the suit building and he died leaving behind three sons, three daughters and wife and defendant the youngest brother of the plaintiff. Rakhal chandra Das used to reside in the suit building as well as the tenanted house at 9a, rajendra Sen Lane, Calcutta 6 particularly in course of his illness for getting the facility of doctors. The defendant having fatory nearby the said rented house used to spend most of the time of the day with the said Rakhal Chandra Das and the plaintiffs used to visit their father on every alternative day. The physical condition of Rakhal was deteriorating day by day and since April 1988 his condition became critical and he had no capacity to rise from his bed and the plaintiff no. 1 talked to his father for the last time on 1. 5. 88. The defendant began to misbehave with the plaintiffs and other members of the family including the sisters and mother and asked the plaintiffs to vacate the suit building posing himself as owner of the building. The plaintiffs caused search through their advocate and learnt that the suit property was transferred to the defendant-respondent by way of a deed of gift dated 16. 6. 88. The said deed is a manufactured deed and the said deed was procured by practising fraud on Rakhal who was absolutely in coma stage and had no power of understanding. The valuation of the property in the impugned deed of gift was much less than the existing market price. The plaintiffs (respondents) accordingly filed suit challenging the said deed of gift.

(2.) THE defendant-appellant contended that the said deed of gift was executed voluntarily by Rakhal Chandra Das while he was in full sense in presence of all the witnesses after understanding the contents of the documents and he has right, title and interest in the suit property.

(3.) LEARNED Trial Court held that the deed of gift is genuine and Rakhal Das voluntarily executed the deed of gift in favour of the appellant and the suit was liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the suit was dismissed by the Learned Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the said judgment the plaintiffs preferred appeal in which it was decided that the deed of gift was not genuine and the same is void and illegal and accordingly Ld. Appellate Court decreed the suit.