DINABANDHU MONDAL Vs. LAXMI RANI MONDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants of Original Suit No.115 of 1995 are in appeal challenging the legality and validity of the judgment and decree of reversal dated 7th Feb., 08 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kandi, Murshidabad in Title Appeal No.3 of 2004.

(2.) The respondents as plaintiffs filed Original Suit No.115 of 1995 stating, inter alia, that their father Durgadas Mondal since deceased was the original owner of the suit property and after his death, the said property was inherited by their deceased mother Jagomaya Dasi and the plaintiffs and defendant No.3, being the daughters of the said Durgadas Mondal. Jagomaya died on 23rd Poush, 1400 BS. Prior to her death she was suffering from various diseases continuously for about three months and was absolutely bedridden. She lost her senses about three days before her death and never regained her sense. The plaintiffs visited their mother who used to stay in the house of the defendants on 20th Poush 1400 BS and found her completely senseless. She had no normal understanding due to her illness on the date when the plaintiffs last visited her before her death. After the death of their mother they came to know that the defendants No.1 and 2 who are the sons of defendant No.3 in collusion with some questionable persons manufactured some deed in respect of the suit property. It is pleaded by the plaintiffs that the said deed is void, inoperative and right, title, interest of the suit property was not transferred by virtue of the said deed in favour of the defendants No.1 and 2. The plaintiffs were present at the time of Shradh ceremony of their mother. The defendants or their mother did not state anything about execution of any such deed. The plaintiffs somehow collected a copy of said purported deed and it was revealed to them that the defendants No.1 and 2 manufactured a void and inoperative deed of gift by practicing fraud. The said socalled deed was not executed by Jagomaya Dasi, since deceased. On the date of alleged execution of the said deed, the donor had no sense and capacity to execute the said deed. The defendants did not acquire any right, title and interest over the suit property by virtue of the said deed. Therefore, the plaintiffs prayed for a decree for setting aside the said deed of gift being fraudulent, void and inoperative and permanent injunction restraining defendants No.1 and 2 from claiming title over the suit property on the basis of the said deed and other consequential reliefs.

(3.) The defendants No.1-3 contested the said suit by filing written statement wherein they denied all allegations made out against them by the plaintiffs in their plaint. Specific case of the defendants is that Jagomaya Dasi, since deceased was the recorded owner of the suit property and her name was duly recorded in RS and LR Record of Rights. She executed a deed of gift in favour of defendants No.1 and 2 on 5th Jan., 1984 which was registered subsequently after her death. On the date of execution of the deed, the said donor transferred the suit property in favour of the defendants/donees and they accepted the gift. It is further pleaded by the defendants that during her life time, Jagomaya Dasi used to stay with the defendants. After her death, the defendants performed her last rituals in their house. The plaintiffs did not perform any rituals after the death of their mother. The said Jagomaya Dasi executed the deed of gift while she was physically fit and mentally alert. It is absolutely false that she was suffering from various diseases due to her old age and lost her sense about three days prior to her death. Accordingly the defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.