NITEI SAHU AND ANR. Vs. CHANDA BEWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANTS are the Petitioners. It is unnecessary to give all details of the case. It would be sufficient to say that the Plaintiff in Title Suit No. 174 of 1960 challenged the sale deed dated 30 -5 -1955 executed by herself in favour Defendant No. 1 as void and not binding on her. The sale deed was assailed on two grounds (i) that it was fraudulent and was the outcome of misrepresentation; and (ii) that there were no due execution and passing of consideration. In paragraph 4 of the plaint there was an assertion that the Plaintiff was a purdanashin illiterate lady.

(2.) APART from the assertion that the sale was not fraudulent and outcome of undue influence, the Defendants asserted that there was due execution and the Plaintiff signed the sale deed after fully understanding the contents thereof which were read over and explained to her before she signed it. In paragraph 9 of the written statement there was first a general denial that all the averments made in paragraph 4 of the plaint were false. There was a further denial that the Plaintiff was not a purdanashin lady.

(3.) EVASIVE denial, - Where a Defendant denies an allegation of fact in the plaint, he must not do so evasively, but answer the point of substance. Thus, if it is alleged that he received a certain sum of money, it shall not be sufficient to deny that he received that particular amount, but he must deny that he received that sum or any part thereof, or else set out how much he received. And if an allegation is made with diverse circumstances, it shall not be sufficient to deny it along with those circumstances.