MUSI DEI Vs. LABANYA BEWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the findings recorded by the trial court holding that the two deeds including Ext. A executed in favour of the appellant who had figured in the court below as the defendant 1, the other defendant being Akhi Dei who did not put in her written statement in the trial court and had not examined herself either, purported to be deeds of gift in respect of the entire properties of the plaintiff Labanya Bewa, the respondent 1 herein, including the homestead land, had been executed fraudulently and by misrepresentation giving the impression to the executant that she was to execute a power-of-attorney in favour of her two sons, the husbands of the donees-defendants, to look after the properties owing to the old age and illness of Labanya who had instituted the suit for a declaration that the defendants had not acquired any right or title over the properties covered by the two deeds registered on March 20, 1968, as the deeds were illegal, fraudulent, invalid and inoperative in law and not binding on Labanya. The case of the defendant 1 Musi Dei was that knowing fully well the contents of the two documents and with full knowledge, Labanya had gifted away her properties executing the two gift deeds, one in her favour and the other in favour of her other daughter-in-law who had figured as the defendant 2 and there had been no fraud or misrepresentation practised on the executant who had earlier got her lands apportioned in favour of her two sons - Balaram, husband of the defendant 1 and Banshidhar, husband of the defendant 2 - who had also married earlier another lady and these transfers had been effected with the consent of Nira, the married daughter of Labanya, who had also signified her consent in the two deeds of gift by putting her left thumb impressions. The pleadings of the parties have been set out in details in the impugned judgment.

(2.) The plaintiff and the defendant 1 went to trial and examined witnesses on their behalf. The case of the defendant 1 was that at the instance of Banshidhar, the husband of the defendant 2, Labanya had instituted a false and frivolous suit. Reliance was placed by the contesting parties on oral and documentary evidence.

(3.) On a consideration of the evidence, the learned Subordinate Judge has accepted the case of Labanya after keeping on record the well-settled principles of law relating to execution of documents by pardahnasin and/or illiterate ladies. The learned Subordinate Judge has held that the executant was not a pardahnasin lady, but she was illiterate and had not been able to read manuscripts although she was able to sign her name.