SAMITRA DEVI Vs. SUKHWINDER PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 16-3/1970. Tulsi Ram filed a suit against Sukhwinder Pal for a declaration that he was owner in possession of 96 Kanals 17 Marlas of agricultural land detailed in the suit and challenged the gift deed dt. 30th Sept. 1968, which is alleged to have been executed by him in favour of the defendant, who is brother's grandson on the ground that the same was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation as he was an old man and it was represented to him by defendant that loan was being granted to the landowners and since he was of old age he should execute a power of attorney. Under the pretext of executing the power of attorney, thumb impressions on the gift deed were obtained, which did not bind him. Before obtaining thumb impressions the defendant administered milk in collusion with his father which contained some drug. In the gift deed it was mentioned that he had no male or female child although he had a daughter living. Even the wife living but no mention was made about her.

(2.) The defendant contested the suit and denied the plea of misrepresentation or fraud. He stated that the plaintiff was treating him as his son as he was serving him and the gift deed was executed on his own free will in lieu of services. The reason for not mentioning about the daughter was that the plaintiff's relation with his daughter and son-in-law were strained and they had obtained his thumb impressions on some document in order to fabricate valuable document to grab his property. He denied his presence at the time of execution of the gift deed.

(3.) During the pendency of the suit Tulsi Ram died and his daughter Smt. Sumitra Devi filed an application for being substituted as legal representative of the plaintiff. She also relied on will dt. 24th May, 1971 executed by her father-in her favour regarding his estate. The defendant set up a counter will dt. 20th Sept. 1968 alleged to have been executed by the deceased in his favour and the rival contentions were enquired into under O.22 R.5 of the Civil P.C. and ultimately, the trial Court found the will set up by the defendant to be forged and accepted the will set up by the daughter and also the fact that she was daughter of the deceased.