(1.) This is the plaintiff's second appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Hamirpur, affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for possession of the suit land, based on an agreement Ex. PW-2/A entered into between the plaintiff and her mother-in-law Smt. Rahaunsu Devi, who was defendant No. 1 in the suit. A decree declaring gift deed, the suit land, made in favour of defendant No. 2, Kishan (who was the brother-in-law of the plaintiff), to be null and void and in the alternative a decree for recovery of Rs. 35,000/- was prayed for.
(2.) The plaintiff is the daughter-in-law of Rahaunsu Devi (who died during the pendency of the appeal before the learned District Judge). The plaintiff pleaded that her husband was living jointly with defendants 1 and 2; she and her husband had been looking after them. At the time when the marriage of defendant No. 2 Kishan, brother-in-law of the plaintiff, was to be solemnized, the family was under financial constraint. In these circumstances, the mother-in-law of the plaintiff, defendant No. 1, approached her with the request that the plaintiff should part with her jewelry in order to tide over the financial crises. The ornaments/jewelry of the plaintiff was given to the bride of defendant No. 2. It was agreed between them that after the solemnization of the marriage the ornaments or their value in money would be returned to the plaintiff. The defendants were not in a position to fulfill the promises made to the plaintiff, therefore, on 20.3.1983 defendant No. 1 executed an agreement Ex. PW-2/A promising to transfer the suit land in favour of the plaintiff. The case set up by the plaintiff is that despite numerous requests having been made to defendant No. 1, she refused to honour the agreement Ex. PW-2/A on one pretext or the other. Her real intention and motive was to transfer/gift this land to her son defendant No. 2. The plaintiff pleaded that the gift deed was null and void and that she was entitled to the suit land on the basis of the solemn promise having been made by defendant No. 1 and as evidenced by Ex.PW-2/A.
(3.) The suit was resisted by the defendants on a number of grounds. It was alleged that the plaintiff or her husband never lived together with the family; no services were rendered by her or her husband as alleged. Defendant No. 1 submitted that the marriage of defendant No. 2 was performed/solemnized by her without any help or assistance in any manner from the plaintiff or her husband and least of all by borrowing her ornaments as alleged. The agreement was denounced as being a forgery. The learned trial Court, framed ten issues and on the crucial issue, as to whether the plaintiff had parted with her ornaments the Court held against her. As a consequence, the other issues, the onus of proof of which was on the plaintiff, were also decided against the plaintiff. The reasoning of the learned trial Court will be noticed in the course of this judgment. The suit was dismissed as being not maintainable. An appeal preferred by the plaintiff before the District Judge, was also dismissed.