UPASNA Vs. OMI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these second appeals being RSA No.203/95 and RSA No.208/95 are directed against two separate judgments and decree dated 22.5.1995 passed by the learned District Judge, Hamirpur in Civil Appeal Nos.31 of 1989 and 120 of 1988. The appellants in RSA Nos.203/95 are the legal representatives of original plaintiff Smt. Tara Rani @ Taro Devi and in RSA NO.208/95 the appellants are the legal representatives of original plaintiffs Bakshi Ram and Smt. Tara Rani @ Taro Devi and respondent -Omi Devi is the defendant in both the appeals. Similar and identical questions of facts and law are raised by the learned counsel for the parties, in these appeals therefore, they are disposed of by this common judgment. The necessary facts giving rise to RSA No.203/95 may be briefly stated.

(2.) Plaintiff Smt. Tara Rani filed suit bearing case No.207/86 on the file of sub Judge, 1st Class -II, Hamirpur for declaration that the gift deed (Ext.Dl) dated 10.1.1985 executed by her father Beli Ram land in favour of defendant Smt. Omi Devi of the land described in the plaint situate at tika Nohara, Tappa Ugialta, Tehsil and District Hamirpur, was void and illegal as the gift was a result of coercion, undue influence, fraud and was not binding on her being the sole legal heir of her father and she was entitled to inherit the land in dispute. She pleaded that she had been looking after her father nicely during his life time who had cordial relation with her. All the funeral ceremonies were also performed by her. She also prayed for a decree of possession of the land in dispute if she was not found in possession thereof.

(3.) The defendant resisted and contested the suit on the grounds pleading inter alia that the suit was liable to be stayed under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; the plaintiff had no locus standi to file the suit; she was estopped by her act and conduct and the suit was also barred under order 2 Rule 2 C.P.C. On merits, it was pleaded that the deceased Beli Ram was being looked after by the defendat as the plaintiff after marriage in the year 1975 started living with her husband, and was unable to maintain and look after her father. The defendant pleaded that the gift deed was executed by Beli Ram donor voluntarily for service rendered to him by her. Other allegations of the plaintiffs were denied by her specifically. In her replication, the plaintiff denied the preliminary objections raised by the defendant in her written statement and re -affirmed and re - asserted her averments pleaded in the plaint.