JHARA PRADHAN Vs. LAXMINARAYANA MISRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendant's appeal against reversing judgment.

(2.) The plaintiff-respondent instituted the suit for recovery of possession and arrear house rent. The case of the plaintiff was that the defendant purchased the suit house from one Baruri Pradhan by means of a registered sale deed dated 5.3.1955 for a valid consideration. She constructed a thatched house over the same. For marriage of her daughter, she sold the suit house to the plaintiff on 3.5.83 for a consideration of Rs.3,000/-, but possession of the house was not duly delivered to him. The defendant requested him to let out the suit house to her on monthly rent of Rs.50/-for three months only to perform the marriage ceremony of her daughter. He requested the defendant to handover possession of the house. All the persuasions made by the plaintiff to give vacant possession of the house ended in a fiasco.

(3.) The defendant filed written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. It was pleaded that the suit house was purchased in her name, but the consideration was paid by her husband. The house belongs to her husband. For marriage of her daughter, she was in need of money. Her husband approached the plaintiff's father, who agreed to lend Rs.6000/- subject to the condition that the defendant and their children shall execute a registered mortgage deed as security for loan. They agreed to the proposal. As the suit house had been purchased by benami in her name, she was required to execute the mortgage deed along with her husband and children. Accordingly, on 3.5.1983 she, her husband and sons had been to the office of the Sub-Registrar, Buguda by the father of the plaintiff and the scribe. Her husband and two sons were asked to sign on the documents. The contents of the documents were not read over and explained to them. She never intended to sell the suit house. Fraud was practiced on her. They are illiterate. Taking advantage of their illiteracy, document was executed.