PARVEEN KUMAR Vs. SAROJNI DEVI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 31.12.2001, rendered by learned District Judge, Hamirpur, in Civil Appeal No.19 of 1993.

(2.) Key facts necessary for the adjudication of this appeal are that the predecessor in interest of the plaintiff/appellant, Jai Nand, filed a suit for possession against the respondents/defendants (hereinafter referred to as the defendants for the sake of convenience). Jai Nand died during the pendency of the suit and his legal representatives, namely, Krishni Devi and Parveen Kumar, were brought on record. Krishni Devi also died during the pendency of the first appeal before the learned lower appellate court. According to the plaintiff, Jai Nand (since deceased), he was entered as owner in possession of the land measuring 11 kanals 14 marlas, comprising khata No.86 min, khatauni No.103 min, Khasra Nos.1867/1110, 1111, 1112 and 1502, situated in Tika Badehar, Tappa Mewa, Tehsil Bhoranj, District Hamirpur, as per jamabandi for the year 1981-82. Defendant No.1, Sarojni Devi, was married in Tika Kakar, which was at a distance of 3 kms from Badehar. The plaintiff fell ill during month of September 1986 and defendant No.1 started visiting him quite often and showed all concerns about well being of the plaintiff. The plaintiff and his wife were under gratitude of defendant No.1 for looking after them with love and care. Ultimately at the request of defendant No.1 that she would serve the plaintiff and his wife, the plaintiff was made to execute a gift deed for future services by defendant No.1 in her favour on 22.12.1986 vide Ext. DW1/A with respect to land measuring 11 Kanals 14 Marlas out of field Nos.1867/1110, 1111, 112 and 1502. According to the plaintiff, the gift deed was conditional in lieu of future services to be rendered by defendant No.1 and the same was revocable under the agriculture custom of the area. After execution of the gift deed, defendant No.1 served the plaintiff and his wife for some time and thereafter, she stopped rendering services to them.

(3.) The suit was contested by defendant No.1. According to her, gift deed was absolute and there was no right of revocation of the gift deed. She also pleaded that right to sue did not survive to the plaintiff Parveen Kumar after the death of Jai Nand. The suit was filed benami . According to her, after marriage, she settled with her husband at Village Badehar and was looking after Jai Nand. She also provided basic necessities of life to him. She had spent huge amount for constructing a house consisting of three rooms and one cow shed at Village Badehar. She was living with Jai Nand. Jai Nand had executed gift deed out of love and affection in her favour and it was not conditional.