MADAN MISRA Vs. CHANDRAMANI DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF is the Appellant against a reversing judgment. He executed a registered sale deed (ext. C) on 17 -2 -1956 in favour of the Defendant for Rs. 100/ -. His case is that the document is nominal, no consideration was paid and the possession remained with the Plaintiff. There was 3, proposal to get the marriage of his daughter with the Defendant and with that end in view the Defendant was kept in the Plaintiff's house as a Gharjoin (son -in -law). The daughter had not attained puberty, and as the Defendant pressed upon the marriage to be performed soon, the Plaintiff executed the document (ext. C) only to give the Defendant an assurance that the marriage would be performed.

(2.) THE defence case is that in fact consideration was paid and possession was delivered. The Plaintiff actually gave his daughter in marriage to him, but later on got her remarried to one Krushna Chandra Panda.

(3.) ON the admitted position that the Defendant was a stranger and was residing with the Plaintiff, much importance cannot be attached to the question of possession or custody of the document, ext. C in this case. According to the Plaintiff, the Defendant was residing with him so as to marry his daughter, while according to the defence, the Defendant had already married the Plaintiff's daughter. Whichever story may be true, the fact remains that Defendant was residing with the Plaintiff. The suit was filed on 6 -10 -1956 within a period of 8 months from the date of execution and it is not unlikely in those circumstances for the Defendant to get the custody of the document also.