JEET RAM Vs. LAIQ RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this regular second appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Solan, in Civil Appeal No. 12-S/13 of 2004, Laiq Ram Vs. Jeet Ram, dtd. 17/5/2004, in terms whereof, the learned first Appellate Court while allowing the appeal filed by the respondents herein, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Kandaghat, District Solan, H.P. in Civil Suit No. 203/1 of 1994, titled as Nanki (deceased) through L.Rs. vs. Laiq Ram, dtd. 23/1/2004.

(2.) Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this appeal are that the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant, namely, Smt. Nanki (hereinafter to be referred as the original plaintiff'), mother of both the appellant as well as the respondent, filed a suit for declaration that gift deed No. 188, dtd. 15/10/1994, executed in favour of the defendant by her was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation of facts and undue influence. The case of the original plaintiff was that she was an old lady who was residing with her elder son Jeet Ram at Dablog. The defendant, who was her younger son, was residing at Panjrol. Her younger son never cared about her and three months before the filing of the suit the defendant took the plaintiff to his house on the pretext that his daughterin-law was in family way. Plaintiff was an accomplished midwife. She was taken to Kandaghat by the defendant who got a document executed by her, which she later came to know was a Will executed both in favour of Jeet Ram and the defendant. According to the plaintiff, she had no intention to execute any such Will. She continued to stay in the house of the defendant on his request who again brought her to Kandaghat in the company of some close relatives and got another document executed from her on the pretext that the land of the plaintiff was to be transferred in favour of Jeet Ram as he, as an obedient son, was performing all the duties towards his mother. According to the plaintiff, on account of her advanced age, she could not understand what was asked by the Sub Registrar Kandaghat, however, she never intended to gift the suit land to the defendant at any point of time. She later on informed plaintiff Jeet Ram that she had got transferred the suit land in his favour by way of a gift deed but on inquiry, it was revealed that defendant had got executed the gift deed in his own favour. Hence the suit.

(3.) The defendant resisted the suit on the ground that there was no strained relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant as alleged. According to the defendant, the plaintiff was residing with both her sons as per her free will and in fact she was living with the defendant from the beginning of the year 1983 when Jeet Ram had refused to maintain her. Defendant stated that he had no knowledge of execution of any alleged will. According to him, it was in the month of November 1994, that Jeet Ram took the plaintiff to his house on the ground that his daughter-in-law had aborted the child and the contention of the plaintiff that the gift deed was a result of mis representation or fraud etc. were incorrect.