KHATRANO DEVI Vs. HAZARI SAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 7th June, 1989 passed by Smt. Rekha Kumari, 1st Additional District Judge, Patna in Title Appeal No. 176 of 1977 confirming the judgment and decree dated 2/8/1977 passed by Sri Danial Barla, Munsif II, Patna in Title Suit No. 75 of 1974 whereby the learned Munsif has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are as follows :- The plaintiff-appellant brought a suit for declaration that the deed of gift dated 15-12-1952 was void, illegal, inoperative and not binding upon her. Further relief was sought by the plaintiff-appellant that if it was found that she was dispossessed during the pendency of the suit. in that case decree for recovery of possession be also passed.

(3.) The case of the plaintiff-appellant was that Late Kunj Bihari Sao had two sons, namely, Ramphal Sao and Rupchand Sao. Ramphal Sao died issueless. Rupchand Sao had also two sons, namely, Ram Briksh Sao and Hazari Sao. Plaintiff-appellant, namely, Smt. Khatrano Devi is the wife of Ram Briksh Sao. According to the plaintiff, there was a partition between Ramphal Sao and Rupchand Sao through a registered deed of partition dated 9-8-1952. Since Ramphal was issueless and plaintiff, Khatrano Devi was taking all care of Ramphal Sao as such he was very much impressed by the services rendered by the plaintiff, who happened to be the daughter-in-law of the said Ramphal Sao and in token of services rendered to him by the plaintiff, the said Ramphal Sao executed a deed of gift dated 16-8-1952 in favour of the plaintiff in respect of Schedule II properties and on the strength of the deed of gift, the plaintiff came in possession of Schedule II property. Further case is that the plaintiffs husband, Ram Briksh Sao, developed has habit of drinking and also lost his wisdom and power of discretion so in order to look after the cultivation work, the plaintiff needed help of some other persons and since defendant Hazari Sao had greedy eyes on the property of the plaintiff, he offered his service and made representation before the plaintiff that in order to manage the properties, he required a power of attorney. Thereafter on the pretext of getting power of attorney executed, defendant-respondent Hazari Sao took plaintiff Smt. Khatrano Devi to Patna and fraudulently got a deed of gift dated 15-12-1952 executed from the plaintiff in his favour in respect of the suit property. The plaintiff being a rustic lady and having been impressed by Hazari Sao, could not be able to discover the fraud immediately and only in the first week of May, 1974 she came to know about the alleged fraud when Hazari Sao in collusion with some undesirable elements tried to forcibly take possession of the suit property on the strength of the alleged deed of gift and hence, necessity of filing of the suit arose.