SHAKUNTLA DEVI Vs. AMAR DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court.

(2.) A few facts relevant to decide this appeal may be stated. Shri Sansar Chand filed a suit for redemption of a mortgage. It was a mortgage with possession. Shri Sansar Singh alleged that he mortgaged the property in dispute in May, 1950 in favour of Smt. Amar Devi for a consideration of Rs. 300/-. It was contended by him that the entire amount stood paid off because the mortgagee was in possession and she felled a number of trees and thereby the entire mortgage money stood paid off and that he was entitled to the possession of the property without payment of any amount. Smt. Amar Devi controverted the allegations of Shri Sansar Singh plaintiff and contended that no trees were cut by her and the entire mortgage money was due to her though she remained in possession. It was also contended by her that Shri Sansar Singh executed a gift deed on March 12, 1959 in favour of Shri Bharat Singh, Smt. Shakuntla Devi and Smt. Ram Devi. As such, it was contended that he ceased to have any interest in the landed property and had no locus standi to file the suit. It was, however, contended by Shri Sansar Singh that the gift was the result of fraud and undue influence and that it was also hit by a custom besides being onerous and not binding on the parties. It was also pleaded that it was a conditional gift and the donees Bharat Singh and others did not fulfil the condition and the gift is deemed to have been revoked. He also executed a registered deed of cancellation of gift on April 20, 1959. It may be pointed out that the aforesaid donees were not made parties to the suit. The trial Court, however, dismissed the suit holding that Shri Sansar Singh had no locus standi to file the suit.

(3.) Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment passed by the trial Court, Shri Sansar Singh preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge. Shri Sansar Singh died during the pendency of the appeal and Smt Shakuntla Devi his daughter, who was also one of the donees, was substituted as a legal representative of Shri Sansar Singh. The learned District Judge held that the gift was defective because it was not accompanied by delivery of possession. He further held that since trees were not felled by the mortgagee, the entire amount of Rs. 300/- was payable to her for the redemption of mortgage. The appeal was accordingly allowed and the suit was decreed.