GAJRAJ PASAYAT Vs. DEBRAJ PASAYAT AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant no.1 is the appellant against a confirming judgment.

(2.) Plaintiffs-Respondent nos.1 and 2 instituted the suit for declaration that the gift deed dated 15.167 executed by the mother and brother of defendant no.1 in favour of the defendant no.1 is a fraudulent one and not binding on them and proforma defendants. One Mohan Pasayat was the common ancestor of the parties. His daughter, Chandrama married to Balaram Pasayat. Balaram died leaving behind him two sons, namely, Kanhei and Gajaraj, defendant no.1. Kanhei died leaving behind the plaintiffs and proforma defendant nos.2 and 3. The case of the plaintiffs was that after death of Balaram, Mohan gifted the suit property to Chandrama by means of a registered gift deed dated 31.3.35. Thereafter Chandrama shifted to her father's house with defendant no.1, when he was three years old. Kanhei remained alone. Defendant no.1 obtained a gift deed in respect of schedule 'A' property from Chandrama and Kanhei on 15.167 by playing fraud. The M.S.R.O.R. stands in the name of Chandrama. While matter stood thus, defendant no.1 filed the gift deed before the consolidation authorities on 10.3.81 during consolidation operation. With this factual scenario, they instituted the suit seeking the reliefs mentioned supra.

(3.) Defendant no.1 filed a written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. The specific case of the defendant no.1 was that Chandrama and Kanhei executed the gift deed dated 15.12.67 in his favour. The gift deed was acted upon. Kanhei was a man of high intelligence. The gift deed is a genuine one. Proforma defendant nos.2 and 3 had been set exparte. The suit land was mutated in his name on 24.2.72, Ext.E. The suit land was also mortgaged on 11.75, Ext.H. A portion of the suit land was sold on 21.9.76 to which Chandrama was a witness.