CHAND SINGH Vs. RAM KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendant's Second Appeal against whom suit for declaration and possession was dismissed by the trial Court but decreed in appeal.

(2.) The plaintiff Smt. Ram Kaur, widow of Sardara Singh, filed the suit for cancellation of the gift deed dated 26th October, 1967 (Ex. D1) executed by her in favour of the defendant Chand Singh alleging that he was cultivating the suit land; that after the death of her husband the defendant approached her, alleging that she was entitled to a share in the estate of her husband, that she was a pardah nashin lady; that she was taken to Moga on the plea she had to file an application there and, thus, got some documents executed by her. It was further alleged by her that in these circumstances she was made to execute the deed of gift. The same challenged on the grounds that the defendant was no relation of hers and the same was vitiated by misrepresentation and fraud and the same was an unconscionable transaction as she had been deprived of the entire land held by her for no consideration. It was further pleaded by the plaintiff that no sane person would deprive herself of her entire property the value of which in the present case was about Rs. 30,000/-. The suit was contested on the plea that the plaintiff had love and affection for the defendant, and so, she made the gift in his favour. It was alleged that the gift was a voluntary act. The plea of limitation was also taken. The trial court found that the plaintiff had failed to prove the allegations made by her that the gift in question was the result of a fraud on the part of the defendant. Consequently, the suit was dismissed. In appeal, the learned District Judge reversed the said finding of the trial court and came to the conclusion that ".... the defendant was not related to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has sons and daughters. No sane person would make a gift of his entire estate. In my opinion, the trial court went wrong when it held that the gift was not vitiated by fraud. I hold that the gift is invalid." With this finding, the suit was decreed for a declaration to the effect that the gift was void. However, the learned District Judge was of the view that the defendant was admittedly in possession of the land as a tenant prior to the gift, and, as such, it would be beyond his competence to dispossess him. Aggrieved with the same, the defendant has filed this Second Appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the finding of the trial court has been reversed in appeal arbitrarily and illegally. There were no specific pleas in the plaint showing fraud or misrepresentation alleged to have been committed by the defendant on the plaintiff. According to the learned counsel, since the relations of the plaintiff with her sons and daughters were not cordial, and she made the gift in question to him in lieu of the services rendered by him to her. Thus, argued the Learned counsel, on the facts and circumstances of the case it could not be held that the gift deed Ex. D1 was the result of any fraud. In support of his contention, he referred to Subhas Chandra Dass Mushib v. Ganga Prasad Dass Mushib, 1967 AIR(SC) 878, Afsar Sheikh v. Solaman Bibi, 1976 AIR(SC) 163 and Ladli Prasad Jaiswal v. The Karnal Distillery Co. Ltd., 1963 AIR(SC) 1279.