UTTAM DADHARA Vs. SUNSBALA DADHARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has been preferred by the defendant appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 19 -05 -2003 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge (Ad -hoc), FTC, Biswanath Chariali, Sonitpur in Title Appeal No. 20/2002 allowing the appeal filed by the respondent/ plaintiff thereby reversing the judgment and decree dated 03 -12 -1997 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Biswanath Chariali in Title Suit No. 50/1998.

(2.) THE brief fact of the plaintiffs case, as emerging from the records, is that she is the wife of late Ratneswar Dadhara. Ratneswar Dadhara had two wives viz. Smti. Sorumaina Dadhara @ Kansoali i.e. the first wife and the plaintiff herself who was the second wife. Ratneswar Dadhara died sometime in the year 1986. In order to avoid any dispute between the two wives, Ratneswar Dadhara, during his life time had called up panchayat on 25 -06 -1976 and in presence of panchayat made his intention clear that he intends to donate certain portion of his land to each of his wives. Accordingly, Ratneswar Dadhara had written a panchayatnama dated 25 -06 -1976 putting on record his intention to donate some part of his land to both his wives while retaining a portion of the property himself for his own benefit. Subsequently, Ratneswar Dadhara had executed two registered deeds of gift bearing No. 1690 and 1691 on 13 -08 -1976 in favour of the plaintiff and Sorumaina Dadhara respectively by donating their respective shares of land mentioned in the registered deeds of gift. In this manner the plaintiff became owner in possession in respect of a plot of land measuring 19B - 6L whereas the first wife had been donated a plot of land measuring 21B -1K -7L. It is the case of the plaintiff that although she had accepted the gift as aforesaid and continued to reside with her husband in the gifted property, yet she did not ask for a mutation in respect of the said plot of land as she was feeling shy to do so during the life time of her husband. However, after the death of her husband, the plaintiff had applied for mutation of the gifted land in her name by filing mutation case No. 195/87 -88. In connection with the said mutation case the defendant No. 1 and 2 had appeared and filed objection taking a plea that the deed of gift No. 1690/76 executed on 13 -08 -1976 had been revoked by the donor by executing a registered deed No. 9/80 on 20 -03 -1980 thereby cancelling the deed No. 1690 executed in favour of the plaintiff. On account of such objection the learned SDC had directed the parties to get their entitlements adjudicated by the civil court.

(3.) THE plaintiff's case is that she had came to know about the execution of the purported deed of revocation only 28 -09 -1988 when the defendants had filed their objection claiming that Ratneswar Dadhara had revoked the gift. The plaintiff had averred in the plaint that Ratneswar Dadhara was all along living with the plaintiff until his death. In the year 1980 the condition of her husband was such that he was not in a position to go to Sootea for the purpose of execution of the deed of revocation of gift due to his poor health condition. It is further contended that even if it is assume that such a deed of cancellation/ revocation was actually executed by her husband yet the same would be void, inoperative in the eye of law and hence, liable to be declared null and void. The plaintiff, therefore, approached the civil court by seeking a declaration of her right, title and interest over the gifted land; for a decree declaring the deed of revocation of gift to be null and void and for cancellation of the same; for a decree of permanent injunction and for other consequential reliefs.