ALLAVARAPU AMMAYAMMA Vs. CHAPADHAR CHOWDHURY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Plaintiff has filed this second appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge of Berhampur dated 30th November, 1950, reversing the judgment and decree of the learned Additional Munsif of Berhampur, dated 17th January, 1949, in a suit for setting aside a sale -deed, Ext. A, dated 19 -4 -1945 for Rs. 450/ -, executed by the Plaintiff, in favour of the Defendant in respect of a house.

(2.) THE Plaintiff's case was that she was a midwife and that the Plaintiff and the Defendant were leading a life of immoral intimacy for the last twenty years and the Plaintiff had full confidence in the Defendant who was in a position to dominate her will. In the early months of 1945, the Plaintiff was ill and the Defendant was attending upon the Plaintiff and looking after her comforts, and during that period the Defendant exercised undue influence over her and misrepresented to her that the suit house should not continue to stand in her name, she happened to be a Government servant and made her believe that the house should be conveyed in the name of the Defendant nominally and benami for her. Under that impression the Plaintiff executed a sale -deed dated 19 -4 -45 in favour of the Defendant, and the recitals in the sale deed about the discharge of the prior loans incurred by the Plaintiff as necessary for the sale were false, and the Plaintiff was not paid a single pie by the Defendant although a show of payment was made before the Sub -Registrar, and in spite of the execution of the sale -deed the Plaintiff was continuing in possession of the suit -house. She further averred in the plaint that she had no independent advice of her own in connection with this transaction, and the Defendant was always putting the Plaintiff as the real owner of the suit -house and was also acting as her agent in realising the rent for the suit -house and paying the me to the Plaintiff. The Defendant also wrote a post -card dated 10 -8 -45 to the Plaintiff wherein he clearly agreed to register a document reconveying the suit -house to the Plaintiff. As however the Defendant had been postponing the execution of the deed of reconveyance, the Plaintiff suspected that the Defendant had the idea of benefiting himself and was not willing to reconvey the property to the Plaintiff in spite of repeated requests. Her case was that the document was a nominal transaction and was vitiated by undue influence and misrepresentation, and as such was liable to be set aside.

(3.) THE following issues were framed in the suit -